IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 803 OF 2006 Between : Union of India rep.by its General Manager. …APPELLANT A N D A.Yellayamm …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 803 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 05.06.2006 in O.A.A No.187 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the applicant, before the Claims Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are that, on 02.11.2003, while the applicant was travelling in a passenger train bearing No.179 from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Anakapalli Railway Station, as a result, she sustained injuries and her right leg was severed. Thereafter, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Anakapalli and from there to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam for further treatment. Hence, the claim. 4. The Railways took objection that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train No.179 from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam; that the inquest report revealed that one female, aged 45 years, Challyamma was run over passenger train No.179 and grievously injured on platform No.3 of Anakapalli Railway Station; that no ticket was traced from her; that there was no eyewitness to the incident to state that the applicant had fallen down from the train; and that she was only run over by the train and the run over can be either at the time of crossing the track or due to criminal act and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.179 passenger travelling from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam on 02.11.2003? 1. Whether the Applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accident fall from the said train? 2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 3. To what relief?” 6. During trial, the applicant herself examined as, AW-1 and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the injuries sustained by the applicant are not arising out of an untoward incident and it is a case of running over on the legs of applicant by the train and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the evidence of A.W.l would clearly go to show that the applicant had fallen from the running train and she sustained injuries and therefore, she is entitled for compensation; that none of the findings of the Tribunal is shown to be incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. The condition precedent for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 ( for short, ‘the Act’) is that there was an untoward incident. The word ‘untoward’ is defined under the 124A of the Act. When a person falls from the running train resulting in death or injuries with a valid ticket, then it can be said that it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124 of the Act. 10. The case of the applicant is that while she was traveling from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam in a passenger train No.179 on 02.11.2003, when the train reached near place of occurrence, she fell down from the moving train. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/railway cannot be accepted for the reason that Ex.A.1 is the message sent by the Deputy Superintendent Engineer, Anakapalli to Government Railway Police stating that the applicant had fallen from the train at platform No.3 and her right leg was severed from the body. Therefore, from the earliest version of the Railways would clearly go to show that the applicant had fallen from the running train. Therefore, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act. 11. Now, it has to be seen that whether the applicant was holding a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. She being a lady, when she had fallen from the running train, immediately she was sent to the hospital for treatment. The lady was traveling from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam, which is a long distance. If really the lady was not having any valid ticket to travel in the passenger train, then certainly she would have been caught hold by the Ticket Collector, considering the fact that long distance was undergone by this lady. So while falling from the running train, possibility of missing of the ticket cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal also observed that the ticket must have been kept in her luggage and the luggage was lost during the transit. Therefore, the initial burden on the applicant to show that she was a passenger travelling in the said train with a valid ticket was discharged. Therefore, the burden shifts to the respondent/Railways to establish that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger traveling with a valid ticket in the said train. The Traveling Examiner of the train has not been examined to show that she was a ticketless passenger. So, considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J JANUARY 31, 2010 YVL