THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 553 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-01-2009 passed in O.A.A.No.415 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The case of the respondents-claimants before the Tribunal is that on 01-04-2003, the deceased Ramdas while traveling from Ranigunta to Gangapur by train, fell down accidentally from running train and died of severe injuries sustained thereby at the spot. Hence, the respondents filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs due to the death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The appellant-Railways filed written statement in the Tribunal denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the respondents are not the dependents of the deceased and that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, and hence, the application be dismissed. 4. Based the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.4.00 laklhs. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None appears for the respondents. 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train and the claimants have not produced any valid ticket of the deceased to travel in the passenger train and that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 8. To claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. Firstly, it must be untoward incident. Secondly; the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket. 9. Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track which was noticed by the Key man, who in-turn informed the same to the Station Master. The Station Master reported incident to the Government Railway Police. Police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. During the course of investigation, police found the ticket on the dead body of the deceased. The objective findings of the police officials during the course of investigation are admissible under law. No contra evidence is adduced by the railways to show that the ticket found during the course of inquest is not a valid ticket or improper ticket. Therefore, the deceased is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train, and the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 10. Coming to the untoward incident, no doubt, the respondents- claimants have not examined any witness to show that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the passenger train, but at the same time, the Key man of the Railways found the dead body and he immediately informed about the incident to the Station Master. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of falling from running rain. Similarly the Doctor who conducted autopsy opined that the injury which is noticed may be possible by falling from a running train. The final report filed by the police would also show that there was no foul play suspicious circumstances resulting the death of deceased. 11. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. On considering these two aspects, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation, and therefore, the order under challenge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 16th August 2011 kvr