THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 609 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ Railways aggrieved by the order, dated 12.04.2007 in O.A.A. No.72 of 2000 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 Chellapu Reddy Govinda @ Govindu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are wife and parents of the deceased, and on 14.03.2000, the deceased traveled by train no.240 passenger from Eluru to Parvathipuram and on arrival at Parvathipuram railway station, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, sustained serious injuries to head and expired on the same day while undergoing treatment. 3. The railways resisted the claim denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no untoward incident of accidental fall from train in question on that day, and there is no report of Guard or any station officials about the fall and therefore the railways are not liable to pay any compensation to applicants. 4. 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. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/railways contended that the applicants failed to produce valid ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger to travel in passenger train and hence, he prays to set aside the award of the Claims Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants contended that the ticket bearing no.03539, was issued on 13.03.2000, and the original ticket was produced which is marked as Ex.C2, which would also go to show that the deceased purchased the ticket, but in Ex.R1, ticket number was wrongly mentioned as ‘03589’ by R.W.1 instead of ‘03539’, and therefore, R.W.1 by mistakenly noted the incorrect number and that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation to the applicants, and considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 8. 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 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 traveling in the passenger train. 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 respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. Death of the deceased in an untoward incident, is not in dispute. After the incident, he became unconscious and few hours thereafter he died. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the passenger train or not. Original ticket is filed which shows that ticket number is 03539. But, it was wrongly mentioned as ‘03589’ in inquest report Ex.A2 and Ex.R1. Because printing of the number on the ticket is not so legible, possibility of noting down the numeric ‘3’ as ‘8’ by R.W.1 cannot be ruled out. Ex.R2 would clearly go to show that the tickets bearing nos.03536 to 03545 were issued at Eluru to travel to Parvathipuram on 13.03.2000. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that fourth digit in the ticket number has not been printed boldly and this would appear to be ‘03539’ but not ‘03589. Original ticket has been summoned and marked s Ex.C2, and the said ticket was seized from the deceased during the time of inquest and the ticket number has been incorporated in the inquest report. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 09.09.2011 DRK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 609OF 2007 9.9.2011 Between Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Chellapu Reddy & others …Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 609 OF 2007 9.9.2011