IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.21-10-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY REVIEW CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1470 OF 2011 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.852 OF 2006 Between: Shaik Ghouse Mohiuddin and two others. --- Review Petitioners/ Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, Southern Railways, Chennai. --- Respondent/ Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY REVIEW CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1470 OF 2011 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.852 OF 2006 JUDGEMENT: This Review Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ﬁled by the Review Petitioners/Appellants/Applicants under Section 114 C.P.C. seeking to review order dated 18-03-2011, passed by this Court in C.M.A. No.852 of 2006, where under and whereby this Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal conﬁrming the order dated 22-06-2006 passed in O.A.A. No.151 of 2001 by the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. Whereas the Review Petitioners are the Applicants, the Respondent is the Respondent in O.A.A. No.151 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, I refer them as arrayed in O.A.A. No.151 of 2001. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Applicants that AW.2 comprehensively deposed to the eﬀect that he traveled by the train along with the deceased and he was exhaustively cross-examined but nothing was elicited from his evidence and he also deposed that he was not present at the time of inquest over the dead body but the enquiry Court and also this Court observed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body. Further, it is contended by him that the question of traveling as a ‘bona ﬁde passenger’ and ‘untoward incident’ are diﬀerent, distinct and independent to each other and not interchangeable and both the issues should have been dealt with independently, whereas those issues were dealt with together and the Respondent admitted that the deceased fell down while traveling from the train which comes within the purview of the exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Act and as such the question of fault of the deceased would not be taken into consideration and the matter is to be considered liberally and further nobody was examined on behalf of the Railways and hence it is a ﬁt case to review the order passed in C.M.A. No.852 of 2001 and allow this Review Petition. 4. The point for consideration is whether suﬃcient grounds there in order to uphold the claim of the applicants in this Review Petition/ 5. Here the evidence of AW.2 is important. He deposed that he met the deceased at the booking counter of Hindupur railway station on 18-06- 2000 at 07-00 p.m. and both of them purchased ticket each individually and he paid Rs.22/- for going to Ananthapur and there were totally three booking counters at Hindupur Railway Station out of which only one was running at that time and Bangalore Express train arrived on the platform at 07-30 p.m. on that fateful day and he boarded the ﬁrst general compartment of the train whereas the deceased boarded the last general compartment of the train and he returned to Hindupur on the night of 20-06-2000 and came to know about the incident and further on 21-06-2000 the concerned Government Railway Police examined him and recorded his statement. He also deposed that at the time of inquest over the dead body, he was not present. 6. If he returned subsequent to the inquest over the dead body it may not be possible for the Government Railway Police to examine him. It is observed contrary to the evidence that he deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body but he was not examined and as such his name was not recorded in the inquest report and if he was an eye witnesses to the incident, deﬁnitely he would have been examined and therefore he should not be treated as eye witness but on that ground alone the Application and Appeal were not dismissed. 7. There is no good basis to say that he traveled by the train. Further, if at all the deceased had traveled by the train his ticket would have been traced at the time of inquest over the dead body, which was conducted without much delay. As per Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act, 1989 ‘Passenger’ means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Therefore, unless he was holding a valid ticket, it cannot be held that he was a bona ﬁde passenger of the train. This aspect was rightly observed by this Court in C.M.A. No.852 of 2006. 8. Further, with regards to the question that the plea that the deceased was a bona ﬁde passenger of the train and the plea that there was untoward incident are distinct to dispose of them together and not independently, even though it was done accordingly, both the aspects were examined comprehensively and ultimately correct ﬁndings were arrived at in that behalf to accept his contention. Further, when he was held to be not a bona fide passenger of the train, the question of application of Section 124-A including the exceptions therein not arose. By virtue of the decision of the Apex Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], the incident would come within the purview of the exceptions there under and as such the applicants would be entitled to necessary compensation only subject to proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train, whereas when he was not held to be a bona fide passenger of the train, the consideration of the same would not arise at all. With the above observations, Review Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:21-10-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY REVIEW CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1470 OF 2011 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.852 OF 2006 October, , 2011 DSH [1] 2008 ACJ 1895