IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.44 OF 2008 Between : The Union of India. ... APPELLANT A N D Godi Yesebu and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.44 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 28.09.2007, in O.A.A.No.86 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Godi Sundara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, 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 16.03.2002, the deceased along with one Sabbe Raju boarded train No.7616 Visakha Express in order to go from Secunderabad to Bhimavaram. When the train reached Bhimavaram Town on platform No.1, Subbe Raju got down from the compartment and while the deceased was trying to get down from the compartment, due to sudden jerk of the passenger train, he lost balance and accidentally fell down from the train in between platform and train and the wheels of the train ran over him and his body was cut into two parts. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the Station Master, Bhimavaram reported that some passengers of train No.7616 Visakhapa Express had given information on 17.03.2002 at 2:00 hours they found one male dead body aged about 30 years on platform No.1 at KM 106/1; that the Station Master also found a key having a metal plate with Ratnam Lodge embossed on it near the dead body; that the Station Master asked the Yard Porter to inform Ratnam Lodge about the incident so that the identities can be established; that according to the Guard of the passenger train, the train stopped at Bhimavaram Town at 01:57 hours and departed at 01:59 hours after due schedule of two minutes; that the train was started by him by duly whistling and taking all precautions; that there was no alarm chain pulling or any commotion on platform to bring to his notice any incident at Bhimavaram Station; that he had not noticed any such incident and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal allowed the Claim Application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Railways. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; that the deceased went to give send off to two Professors, and that the railway administration is not liable to pay compensation to the deceased, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended A.W.2 has categorically stated that they purchased two tickets to travel from Secunderabad to Bhimavaram; that while getting down at Bhimavaram Station, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the passenger train; that police mentioned ticket number in the inquest report and considering these aspect the Tribunal rightlyl granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant 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 travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicant fall under any one of the exceptions mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 10. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that while the deceased was getting down from the passenger train, he accidentally slipped and fell down and died. Police also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died while getting down from the running train. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that those injuries can be possible by falling from a running train. From the evidence on record, the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident. 11. With regard to the second aspect, the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. To prove the same, A.W.2 was examined. He categorically deposed that he along with the deceased travelled from Secunderabad to Bhimavaram by purchasing two tickets. At the time of conducting inquest, police found ticket bearing No.05228419, for travelling two persons from Secunderabad to Bhimavaram. The objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are admissible under law. It is not the case of the railway administration that the ticket as noticed by the police during the course of inquest was not a valid ticket. The evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. The evidence of A.W.2 coupled with recitals in Ex.A.3, would clearly go to show that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Except filing paper clipping, there is no other evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 28.09.2007 in O.A.A.No.86 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad _______________ K.C.BHANU, J AUGUST 16, 2011. YVL