IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.836 OF 2006 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Kaatnam Satyavathi and others. ...Appellants And Union of India ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.86 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of K.Seetha Ramarao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the applicants, and respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 16.02.2000 the deceased in order to go from Ankapalli to Visakhapatnam boarded train No.6804 Tiruchirapalli-Howrah Express and when the train was leaving Duvvada railway station, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, sustained severe multiple injuries and while undergoing treatment at K.G. Hospital he died. 4. The respondent/ Railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased K.Seetha Ramarao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6804 Tiruchirapalli-Howrah Express travelling to Visakhapatnam on 16.02.2000? 3. Whether the death of the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Duvvada and Visakhapatnam railway stations? 4. What relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident and is due to self-inflicted injuries and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, correct and legal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the applicants produced tickets to show that the deceased was bona fi de passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket in order to go from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam; that the death of the deceased was in an untoward incident of accidental fall and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that the tickets produced by the applicants are not valid to enable the deceased to travel beyond Anakapalli; that admittedly, the incident had taken place at Duvvada Railway Station, which is in between Visakhapatnam and Anakapalli; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute before this Court that there was no scheduled halt to stop the train at Duvvada Railway Station, where the alleged incident had taken place where the deceased tried to get down from the train when it was stopped. There cannot be any dispute that accidental fall from a train is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 ( c) of the Act. The deceased was found lying by the side of the railway track near Duvvada Railway Station. Police after receipt of intimation about the death of the deceased registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, police found two seasonal tickets and one general ticket from the dead body of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The objective finding is that three tickets were seized from the dead body of the deceased. One seasonal ticket relates to travel from Visakhapatnam to Anakapalli; second seasonal ticket is to travel from Anakapalli to Samalkot; third ticket is to travel from Rajahmundry to Samalkot. All these tickets are not shown to be incorrect or invalid tickets. But, at the same time, they cannot be said to be valid tickets to enable the deceased to travel in between Anakapalli to Visakhapatnam, in view of the fact that the untoward incident had happened after crossing Anakapalli. 13. The applicants examined A.W.2 to show that the deceased purchased a ticket to go from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam by passenger train No.6804. It seems A.W.2 raised cries when the deceased had fallen from the running train. On hearing the cries, the train was stopped. The presence of A.W.2 was doubted by the Tribunal for the reason that there is no need for the deceased to purchase a ticket from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam as his destination place is only Anakapalli and there is no scheduled halt for the train at Anakapalli. Therefore, A.W.2 is not a reliable witness so as to place an implicit reliance on his evidence. His evidence appears to be incorrect because there is no reason for the deceased to purchase a ticket to travel from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam. As his place of destination is only Anakapalli, he ought to have purchased the ticket from Rajahmundry to Anakapalli. Furthermore, the deceased was not having a valid ticket to travel from Anakapalli as the tickets that were noticed by police during the course of inquest are not valid to enable the deceased to travel in between Anakapalli to Visakhapatnam. So, the Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 19 2011 YVL