HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.842 of 2007 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: Union of India, Rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant and B. Bhimalamma and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.842 of 2007 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 11.4.2007, in O.A.A.No.188 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Bhukya Erra Badyanaik (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 25.5.2002, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife and children, respectively, of the deceased; that the deceased along with one J. Bhimalamma purchased two passenger train journey tickets in the early hours of 25.5.2002 at Vikarabad Railway Station to go to Begumpet for both of them and when they came to platform, Train No.350 Aurangabad Passenger was already available on the platform, that the deceased boarded the train first in general compartment and was standing at the door holding iron bars and tried to go inside the compartment and, in the meanwhile, the train started and was leaving the platform before his co-passenger J. Bhimalamma, who was still on the platform, boarded the train, as a result, the deceased slipped from the running train accidentally at the end of Vikarabad platform at about 5.05 hours and that the right leg of the deceased was cut and he sustained fracture injuries, that the injured was shifted to Government Hospital by Railway Police and subsequently he died while undergoing treatment on the same day at 8.10 hours, that the tickets, which were stated to be with the deceased at the time of his fall from the train has been declared lost in the accident. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no untoward incident has taken place at Vikarabad Railway Station on the alleged date, that as per F.I.R., the deceased has fallen while getting down from the running train, which is on account of self-inflicted injuries and that the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Bhukya Erra Badyanaik? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.350 Aurangabad – Kacheguda Passenger travelling from Vikarabad to Begumpet on 25.5.2002? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries due to an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and succumbed to injuries? 4. Whether the deceased was negligent and careless and injuries sustained by him amounts to self inflicted injuries? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the Railways filed this appeal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that there is no evidence adduced by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2, who is present along with the deceased, is very clear that she along with the deceased went to Railway Station and both of them purchased the tickets and, therefore, the Tribunal believed the evidence of A.W.2 and came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and had rightly granted the compensation, that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train or the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The deceased fell down from the train carrying passengers and, as a matter of fact, R.W.1 sent a message to the police to send the injured to Vikarabad Government Hospital, where the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The deceased fell down from the train at Vikarabad platform on 25.5.2002 at about 5-20 hours. Therefore, the Railways is not disputing about the untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. The police also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.A-2. They examined A.W.2 and other witnesses and the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained on account of accidental fall from a train. Thereafter the body was subjected to postmortem examination and the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, also opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train carrying passengers is established beyond preponderance of probability. 12. Now, coming to the second aspect of the case, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But, at the same time, they have examined A.W.2, who was accompanying the deceased, and her evidence is very clear that both of them went to Railway Station and purchased the tickets and that the deceased kept the tickets with him and boarded the train. Practically, the evidence of A.W.2 remains unchallenged and the presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of time of purchasing the tickets is not specifically denied or disputed. The presence of A.W.2 cannot be doubted, because she was examined as one of the eye witnesses during the course of inquest. Therefore, when the presence of A.W.2 is established, there is a scope or possibility for A.W.2 to witness the deceased purchasing the ticket. When once the evidence of A.W.2 is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable, there is no legal bar or impediment to place reliance on her evidence. Further-more, the evidence of A.W.2 can be put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting her evidence, and that is the reason why the Tribunal had rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. There are no other reasons to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. As these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 13. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 22.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.842 of 2007 22.09.2011 (Msr)