HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1120 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order in O.A.A. No.156 of 1999 dated 18-08-2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellants under the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘Railways Act’) claiming an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation on account of the death of the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 in the train accident that occurred on 31-05-1998. 2. Appellants herein are applicants and respondent herein is respondent in the O.A.A. before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the O.A.A. before the Tribunal. 4. According to applicant Nos.1 to 3, who are wife and children respectively of the deceased V. Narasimhulu, Reserve Police Constable, deceased travelled from Nellore to Renigunta on duty by Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupathi passenger holding duty pass No.004915 and at about 4-05 AM, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train near Station Master’s Office at Srikalahasthi Railway Station and his head was cut off and separated form the body resulting in his instantaneous death. Hence, applicants claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- since the accident was due to an untoward incident and accidental slip of the deceased form the passenger train. 5. Respondent filed its counter denying that the accident was due to an untoward incident. It was stated that as per Column No.7 of the inquest report, head was separated from the body and lying between the two rails and rest of the body was outside the track found lying on the main line opposite to Station Master’s Office after departure of Train No.474. The clothes and shoes are intact on the body, so also, the spectacles on the severed head and his wristwatch was also intact. The circumstances show that the deceased must have committed suicide, thereby it is not attracted by a definition of an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(ii) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of deceased V. Narasimhulu ? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.474 Kakinada-Tirupathi passenger traveling from Nellore to Renigunta on 31-5-98 ? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of throwing him from the train at Srikalahasti Railway Station ? 4. To what relief ? 7. On behalf of the applicants, AW-1 was examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent – railways, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. However, on behalf of the Tribunal, it appears Exs.C-1 to C-3 were marked. 8. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, insofar as issue No.1 was concerned, it was held by the Tribunal that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. However, on issue Nos.2 and 3, it was held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the accident, which resulted in death of the deceased, was not an untoward incident of accidental fall from a passenger train and thus denied grant of any compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants strenuously contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos.2 and 3 are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The duty pass recovered from the body of the deceased was not disputed, and therefore, it must be deemed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupati passenger holding duty pass No.004915 and had slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train near the Station Master’s Office at Srikalahasthi Railway Station, therefore it was an untoward incident and, as such, the applicants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are totally irrelevant apart from being perverse, therefore the same are liable to be set aide and the application requires to be ordered as prayed for. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – railways supported the award passed by the Tribunal and stated that merely because the deceased was holding a duty pass, it cannot be said that he was a bona fide passenger travelling on Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupati passenger on 31-05-1998. According to the inquest report, the neck portion was separated and was lying in between the train track and body was little apart and apart from this no other injuries were suffered by the deceased, therefore it must be deemed that it is a case of suicide and, as such, the findings recorded by the Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the absence of any eyewitness, that it must be deemed that the deceased committed suicide but he did not died in an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act are based on evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court. 11. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. 12. The accident, as such, is not denied. In the inquest report, at Clauses – III and IX, it was recorded that on 31-05-1998 at about 4-05 hours, after the Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupati passenger left at Srikalahasthi Railway Station, the Deputy S.S. on duty first found the deceased and the head separated from the body on the main line opposite to A.S.M. Office, opposite Platform No.1. “It appears that the deceased was travelling on duty in the passenger train going from Nellore to Tirupathi, slipped and accidentally fell down under the train and his head was separated from the body as the train ran over him and died.” The deceased on duty travelling by Train No.474 passenger going from Nellore to Tirupathi, slipped and fell down under the train and his head was separated from the body and, as such, the danger might have occurred. These all would go to show that the panchas of the inquest report opined that the accident occurred due to accidental fall from the running train of Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupati passenger and on the body of the deceased, duty pass bearing No.004915 was found, which was issued by the appropriate authority, which was marked as Ex.A-4. A reading of the same would reveal that he was issued with duty pass on 30-05-1998 at 21-00 hours. He was supposed to go to Gunthakal and complete the work entrusted to him and come back to Renigunta. This very duty pass indicates that the deceased was on duty and he was travelling on the train from Kakinada to Tirupati to go to Renigunta and in the meanwhile accident occurred at Srikalahasthi Railway Station. Immediately after passing of Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupati Express, Deputy Station Master found the duty pass and the place of accident (precincts of Srikalahasthi Railway Station) would indicate firstly that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on Government duty under a bona fide pass issued by the competent authority. The panchas under the inquest have opined that he must have fallen down accidentally form the running train and died. 13. Thus, merely because head was separated from the body and there were no other injuries suffered by the deceased, it cannot be said that it was not an accident, but it was only a suicide. Admittedly, accident occurred in the Railway Station. Generally, the train would be very slow at that place. Therefore it must be construed that the deceased might have fallen down and his head came on the track and the train passed over his head. This itself does not mean that the deceased should have suffered other injuries to come to the conclusion that it was a train accident due to accidental slip and it is an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal have no basis whatsoever to say that it was a suicide. There was no eyewitness to the incident. Eve the Deputy Station Master, who immediately sighted the dead body, did not say that it was a suicide or in his evidence in chief or in the cross, he said so. Only on imagination, on the basis of the arguments advanced by the respondent before the Tribunal, such a finding recorded by the Tribunal is nothing but on mere assumption and presumption without there being any supportive factual evidence. A presumption cannot be drawn out of a vacuum. Presumption under law can be drawn only when there are certain undisputed facts from the existing undisputed facts of the case and not otherwise. In this case, except the assumption and presumption, there is no other supportive evidence before the Tribunal. 14. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on Government duty on Train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupati Express holding duty pass No.004915 and died in the untoward incident due to accidental fall from the running train near the Station Master’s Office at Srikalahasthi Railway Station at 04-05 hours on 31-05-1998, and therefore, the applicants are entitled to their claim of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. 15. In the result, respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of this appeal till realization. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 29, 2010. PV