THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1191 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS COMMON JUDGMENT: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 07-07-2009 in O.A.A No.147 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/- consequent upon the death of Annadasu Jagannadham (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to pay the compensation amount within two 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. The applicants filed cross-objections for grant of interest at 9% p.a. on the awarded compensation amount from the date of filing claim petition till the date of realization. 3. Brief facts are that on 14-04-2003 the deceased along with one Adapa Vijaya Kumari were travelling in 7423 Narayanadri express with ticket bearing No.20932578 in general compartment from Tirupathi to Guntur and when the train reached Stuvartapuram Railway Station yard, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at K.M.No.347/29-27 and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The Railways filed written statement stating that Narayanadri express left Chirala at 1/06-08 hours and passed Stuvartpuram at 1/14 hours and reached Bapatla at 1.19 hours. The guard of the train has not noticed any incident and nobody has brought to his notice of any untoward incident. However, key man of Stuvartapuram Railway Station reported that a male dead body was lying between Up and Down lines at K.M.No.347/29-27. The alleged incident, if any, was due to the criminal act of the deceased for which Railways are not liable to pay compensation. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3.Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4.To what relief? 6. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of Railways, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 7. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. For not granting interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, the applicants filed cross- objections. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the incident had happened due to negligence on the part of the deceased, that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger falling from the train with a valid ticket, that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in a right perspective and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that police during the course of inquest, found a ticket and the number of the ticket has been specifically mentioned in the inquest report and the same is not shown to be in valid or incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-objections. 11. 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. 12. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the key man of Stuvartapuram Railway Station found a dead body. Thereafter, police registered a case and after calling for the mediators, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, police noticed a ticket and mentioned the number of the ticket in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that objective findings of the Investigating Officer are admissible under law. Therefore, the ticket number as noted down in the inquest report is not shown to be invalid or incorrect. Once initial burden stands on the applicants stands discharged, the burden shifts to the Railways to show that the deceased not a bona fide passenger. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 13. Coming to the negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the clauses as mentioned under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation as the death of the deceased was established beyond preponderence of probability in an untoward incident and the evidence would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. 14. With regard to cross-objections, there is no claim for grant of interest from the date of petition till the date of award in the claim application filed by the applicants. Hence, the cross-objections are liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 19-08-2011 Hsd