THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/Railways aggrieved by the order, dated 29.02.2008 in O.A.A. No.178 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Bijender Kumar Choubey (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent, and the respondents herein are the applicants, before the Claims Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the Claims Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed the claim application stating that they are wife and minor children of the deceased, and on 06.03.2003, the deceased boarded train No.7049 Machilipatnam - Secunderabad Express in second class general compartment to travel from Vijayawada to Secunderabad by holding a valid journey ticket, and when the train was leaving platform of Vijayawada railway station, due to rush of the passengers and sudden jerks of the train, he slipped and accidentally fell down from the running train between the platform and the train, sustained severe, multiple, crush and fracture injuries, and died on the spot, and that the ticket was lost in the accident as his clothes were badly torn due to the injuries. 4. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the applicants are not legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the fall of the deceased was not in an untoward incident, and hence, the applicants are not entitled to compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/railways. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that when police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, they did not find any valid ticket to travel from Vijayawada to Secunderabad, and without considering these aspects, the Tribunal granted the compensation, and hence he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants contended that the previous day journey ticket, cash and some other articles were seized from the brief-case of the deceased but not from the pant or shirt pocket of the deceased, and that as the clothes of the deceased were badly torn, the possibility of missing of the ticket cannot be ruled out, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that 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 traveling in the train carrying passengers. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions mentioned in proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 10. Death of the deceased in an untoward incident, is not in dispute. Police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, condition of the dead body and also clothes on it were noted by the investigating officer in column no.7 of the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The objective findings recorded by the investigating officer are that the clothes on the dead body were badly torn. In such a case, the possibility of missing or loosing the ticket after the deceased had fallen down from the train and was being dragged for some distance, cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that cash of Rs.12,000/-, one pair of clothes, a calculator and visiting cards were seized from the pocket of the deceased and in such circumstances, if really the deceased purchased the return ticket, it would have been found in the pocket. But, that appears to be an incorrect finding because the said articles were seized from the brief-case of the deceased but not from the pant pocket of the deceased. When the deceased purchased Ex.A1- ticket to travel from Secunderabad to Vijayawada on the previous day, there is every likelihood of the deceased purchasing the return ticket so as to travel back from Vijayawada. As the clothes of the deceased were torn badly, the ticket must not have been traced by police during the course of inquest. The Tribunal rightly gave the finding that the ticket might have been lost after the incident as the dead body was handled by several persons. Therefore, considering all the aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 10.10.2011 DRK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2008 10.10.2011 Between Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Kamal Choubey & others …Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2008 10.10.2011