IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1526 of 2008. Date:23.08.2011 Between:- P.Santhamma ..Appellant/Applicant And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 11.01.2008, in O.A.A.No.323 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellant/applicant under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Panchala Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 23.10.2002 was dismissed. 2 . The appellant/applicant is the mother of the deceased. On 23.10.2002, the deceased boarded train No.7406 Hyderabad – Tirupati Krishna Express at Vijayawada and when the deceased was attempting to get down from the train at Tenali, he accidentally fell down from the train due to heavy rush, got severely injured and died in the Government Hospital at Tenali while undergoing treatment. The season ticket No.17658174 from Vijayawada to Tenali has been kept by Government Railway Police, Tenali. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that as per the records of Tenali station, there was no untoward incident happened at Tenali on that day. The Guard of train No.7406 of 23.10.2002 also reported that there was no case of anybody falling from the train and nobody had brought to his notice about occurrence of any such incident, and also there was no alarm chain pulling. So, it is not a case of accidental fall from the train and that the applicant has made out a bogus case for getting compensation from the railway administration and prayed for dismissal of application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant is the dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7406 Krishna Express, travelling from Vijayawada to Tenali? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the appellant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is 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 the passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the Tribunal has given a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident, but basing on the contents in the First Information Report, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased jumped from the train and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for compensation; and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the appellant. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the First Information Report would clearly go to show that the deceased jumped from the running train and therefore, it cannot be construed as an untoward incident; that hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. The police, while conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased, seized a season ticket and hence it can be held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because the objective findings of the investigating officer during inquest are admissible under law. 12. With regard to the aspect of untoward incident is concerned, the dead body was found by the side of the track. A.W.2 immediately took the deceased to the hospital because at that time, he did not die. It seems that the hospital authorities gave an intimation to the Government Railway police stating that the person, who was admitted in the hospital, jumped from the train. Basing on the information received from the hospital authorities, the police registered a case and investigated into. So, basing on that, the Tribunal held that the deceased jumping from the train amounts to committing of suicide. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for compensation. In the first instance, the contents in the First Information Report are not substantive piece of evidence. At best, it can be used as a corroboration or for contradicting the maker when he comes to the witness box. The maker of the First Information Report was not examined. Therefore, the contents in the First Information Report, as such, are not an evidence so as to rely upon. Therefore, the Tribunal committed a grave mistake in relying upon the contents in the First Information Report, which are not substantive evidence. When the two requirements are satisfied, the appellant is entitled for compensation. Therefore, the appellant is awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this Award till the date of realization. 13. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 11.01.2008, in O.A.A.No.323 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​__________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1526 of 2008. Date:23.08.2011 AMD