HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.20 OF 2003 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.121 of 1999 dated 18-04-2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderbad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellants under the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘Railways Act’) was dismissed. 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 herein are referred to as they arrayed in the O.A.A. before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the applicants that their son Ballari Venkata Satyanarayana died in a railway accident, which amounted to an untoward incident that occurred on 29-06-1998 between Kistansettipalli and Uppalapadu Railway Stations. According to them, deceased was travelling from Guntur to Giddalur with a valid railway journey ticket No.55573 and boarded Train No.510 passenger in General Compartment. It appears, deceased was though supposed to travel from Guntur to Giddalur, since it was 3-00 AM, he was sleeping and woke up when the train passed Kistansettipalli Station and reached Uppalapdu Gate and he came to the door anxiously to see which Station was coming and at that time he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train due to sudden jerks of the train and died on the spot. An inquest was conducted and the police registered a case. Therefore, applicants have claimed a compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of the deceased. 5. The respondent – railways filed a written statement denying the allegations made by the applicants and it was the case of the respondent that claim was a fictitious one, inasmuch as, no untoward incident has taken place by Train No.510 on 28/29-06-1998 anywhere on Guntur – Giddalur Railway Stations on the railway track. It was also denied that deceased was accompanied by his brother, went to Guntur for Army recruitment examination and in the return journey, he fell down from the train. With regard to deceased possessing railway journey ticket No.55573, it is contended that railway journey ticket was planted though the deceased was not a passenger of Train No.510. Statement of the brother of the deceased is false and unreliable since they travelled in separate bogies in return journey. The journey tickets were held separately instead of holding by any one of them. Hall-ticket should have been found in the pocket of the deceased, if he was returning after the military recruitment written test. It is further contended that as per the statement of the brother of the deceased, injured was taken to Police Station, Giddalur by himself and their father, as such, complainants/informers should be both of them, whereas in the FIR, it was mentioned that S.H.O., Giddalur, was the complainant and that someone has informed to Bandi Bhaskara Reddy of his village without giving the name of the informer, as such, statements of the brother of the deceased etc., are false. Nobody has informed as to the alleged incident. Assuming that death was on account of fall from the train, it was due to wilfully attempting to jump- out from the train in a rash and negligent manner by the deceased which attracts the provisions of sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 124(A) of the Railways Act. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the Applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased B.V. Satyanarayana? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.510 pass. travelling from Guntur To Giddalur on 28-6- 98? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train on 29-6-98 between Kistamsettipalli and Uppalapadu Railway Stations ? 4. To what relief ? 7. On behalf of the applicants, father and brother of the deceased were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no evidence was adduced. 8. However, after a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before the Tribunal, it came to the conclusion that though the applicants are dependents of the deceased and he died in an untoward incident, on the other issue it was found that deceased was not a bona fide passenger in Train No.510, as such, applicants are not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. 9. Sri Potigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the applicants – appellants, contended that though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased died in an untoward incident and the applicants are dependants of the deceased, erroneously held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in Train No.510, as he was travelling beyond Guntur – Giddalur Railway Stations, as such, the applicants are not entitled to compensation. Learned counsel relying on Section 138(2)(b) of the Railways Act, contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger though he travelled beyond the journey Stations i.e., Guntur – Giddalur Railway Stations, as he was holding valid railway journey ticket. 10. Sri T.S. Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – railways, supporting the order of the Tribunal contended that there are no grounds for interference of this Court, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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. Section 138(2)(b) of the Railways Act reads as under: “ Section 138(2)(b): Levy of excess charge and fare for travelling without proper pass or ticket or beyond authorized distance, if any passenger, travels in or on a carriage beyond the place authorised by his pass or ticket, he shall be liable to pay, on the demand of any railway servant authorized in this behalf, any difference between the fare paid by him and the fare payable in respect of the journey he has made and the excess charge referred to in sub- section (3). ” 13. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, now the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in Train No.510 on 28/29-06-1998 ? 14. In this regard, ticket bearing No.55573 from Guntur to Giddalur recovered from the body of the deceased at the time of inquest is not denied except saying that journey ticket has been planted, though deceased was not a passenger in Train No.510, and therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger. On all other aspects, such as the applicants being dependants of the deceased and his death due to untoward incident by Train No.510 between Kistansettipalli and Uppalapadu Railway Stations on 28/29-06-1998 are not denied, as noticed at paragraph No.16 of the impugned order, which reads as under: “Hence, this issue is decided thus – although he was a bonafide passenger upto Giddalur station at the location of occurrence of untoward incident between Kistamsettipalli and Uppalapadu Gate, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.” 15. Now coming to the issue proper, the fact that ticket No.55573 was recovered from the body of the deceased at the time of inquest is not denied. It is also not denied that ticket was valid from Guntur to Giddalur. It is also a fact that accident occurred at 3-00 AM in the morning. It is not unusual that during that time, passengers travelling in the train would be sleepy and sometimes they miss their destination and travel beyond and may get down wherever they woke up. In the teeth of the evidence of B. Krihna Murthy, brother of the deceased, who filed an affidavit stating that deceased Satyanarayana and himself left to Guntur on the night of 27-06-1998 and reached Guntur on 28-06- 1998 with a view to attend a written examination of the deceased for recruitment in Army and after the written examination, both of them came to Guntur Railway Station, purchased two railway journey tickets, had them separately with each one and although they boarded Train No.510 Guntur – Dharmavaram passenger in separate general compartments, at Giddalur his brother could not get down and he could not find him. He presumed that his brother was in sleepy mood and may get down in the next Station. After he reached home at 6-00 AM, Post Master of Giddalur informed that she received a telephone call from Giddalur that his brother Satyanarayana slipped and fell down from the train, sustained severe multiple injuries and was lying by the side of the railway track and they were asked to attend the place of occurrence immediately where he found his brother injured (deceased) and shifted him to Government General Hospital, Giddalur. Doctors, who examined his brother, declared him dead at 8- 00 AM. In the cross-examination, nothing special was elicited to contradict his statement. In fact, no evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced by the respondent. In the absence of any rebuttable evidence of B. Krishna Murthy, brother of the deceased, or even otherwise, in view of the valid railway ticket recovered from the body of the deceased, simply because he travelled, during the night, little more distance than Giddalur, it cannot be said that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train, and therefore, he could not have been denied compensation as claimed by the applicants. 16. Further, in view of Section 138(2)(b) of the Railways Act also, deceased cannot be said to be an unauthorized passenger, as he was holding valid railway journey ticket bearing No.5573 for Guntur to Giddalur and as he is liable to pay any difference between the fare paid by him and the fare payable in respect of the excess journey he has made beyond the Station to which he has valid ticket. 17. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the deceased was travelling with a bona fide ticket and as found by the Tribunal he died in an untoward incident and therefore the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed for. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The respondent – railways is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the applicants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of appeal till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 22, 2010. PV