THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 16-07-2009 in O.A.A No.359 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death Thumma Ramachandra Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed and directing the Railways to pay the said amount within 2 months from the date of order, failing which, the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that on 12-03-2001 while the deceased was traveling in train No.7406 Krishna Express from Vijayawada to Bapatla with a ticket bearing No.02065833, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train near Guntur Railway gate at K.M.No.356/7-9 post at Bapatla and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The enquiries reveal that one dead body was found at K.M.No.356/7-9 of Bapatla Railway Station limits on 12-03-2011 and that there is no eye witness to the fall of the deceased from the train and therefore, it is not a case of untoward incident. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Thumma Ramachandra Reddy? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of 7406 Krishna Express traveling from Vijayawada to Bapatla on 12-03-2001? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Guntur Railway gate at KM No.356/7-9 at Bapatla? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked. No evidence either oral and documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that since the ticket has not been produced, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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 the train with a valid ticket. 10. The death of the deceased by accidentally falling from the running train is not in dispute. A.W.2 is the person who saw the deceased falling from the train. He was one of the witnesses to the inquest report. Police after registering the FIR, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest mediators. At the time of inquest, they found a ticket and the ticket number was mentioned in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that objecting findings of the Investigating Officer are admissible under law. If the ticket number as furnished in Ex.A2 is found to be valid, then the burden is on the Railways to show that the ticket is not a valid one. That burden has not been discharged. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 24-08-2011 Hsd