IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1147 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Sarika Santamma …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1147 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2005 in O.A.A.No.190 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Reddy Appalamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the said amount within sixty days from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum till realization. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondent in the appeal is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed the claim application stating that on 16.12.1998 the deceased boarded East Coast Express in order to go from Howrah to Cheepurupally, and while travellling in the said train, she had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train between Dusi and Ponduru railway stations on the early hours at 3:45 AM on 17.12.1998 and died. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement resising the claim and taking a stand that unless it is proved by the applicants that there was an accidental fall of the passenger during the journey which is an untoward incident, liability cannot be fastened on the railways and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Reddy Appalamma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the incident resulting in death of Reddy Appalamma, deceased cannot be termed as an untoward incident? 4. To what amount, if any, the Applicant is entitled to? 5. Relief?” 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and she died in an untoward incident. Challenging the same, Railways filed the present appeal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent contended that the applicant failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and so, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation and hence, he prays allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that himself and the deceased were returning to Cheepurupally by purchasing ticket after attending the work at Calcutta; that A.W.2 was an illiterate person and his evidence is very clear that they were travelling in East Coast Express by purchasing the ticket, and that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of 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 a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled to compensation being the dependents of the deceased. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. With regard to the first aspect, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track between Dusi and Ponduru railway stations at the early hours of 3:45 AM on 17.12.1998. The Key man of the railways found the dead body of the deceased and informed the incident to the nearby Station Superintendent. Police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 11. With regard to the second aspect, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or not, the initial onus of proof is on the applicant to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If the initial onus of proof standing on the applicant is discharged, the onus of proof shifts to the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. No doubt, during the course of inquest, police did not find any ticket on the wearing apparels of the deceased, but at the same time, the applicant examined A.W.2 who is a Domestic Servant working with one Shaik Sartaj at Calcutta along with the deceased. It seems the deceased and A.W.2 went to Calcutta to work as Domestic Servants with the Master. After attending the work at Calcutta, they were returning to their native place Cheepurupalli by boarding East Coast Express at Howrah. On the intervening night of 16/17.12.1998 when the deceased went to wash basin to wash the face, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train and died. The Tribunal placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 as his presence at the time of purchasing tickets and travelling with the deceased, remained unchallenged. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 1998. After lapse of four or five years, A.W.2 was examined before the Tribunal. Not giving a satisfactory explanation about the tickets, cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of A.W.2. The presence of A.W.2 at the time of the incident is not in dispute. The fact that he along with the deceased went to Calcutta to work as Domestic Servants at the house of one Shaik Sartaj, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that they were travelling by East Coast Express after purchasing the ticket at Howrah Station. Having travelled for a considerable long distance, they would not have undertakes such a long distance without any ticket. The presence of A.W.2 at the time of purchasing the ticket is established beyond preponderance of probability. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. The Tribunal placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is accepted true, correct and trustworthy, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 10, 2011 YVL