THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.1537 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.08.2005 passed in O.A.A.No.194 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the respondent for the death of their son in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 18.12.1998 the Munaga Sudheer Babu (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) died in an untoward incident while he was travelling in a train from Vijayawada to Guntur after purchasing a ticket. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending that in the absence of any ticket or train number, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also denied that the death of the deceased was a result of an untoward incident. It is further submitted that the on duty Key man found a dead body of a male person aged about 35 years at about 9.35 hours at KM 425/28-A-30A between Krishna Canal and Vijayawada on 18.12.1998 and that the position and condition of the body and the time clearly rule out any possibility of death due to fall from any train and it is a case of run over of a passenger while crossing the track and that the death was not occasioned in the course of working of Railway and hence the Railways are not liable to pay any compensation. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Munaga Sudheer Babu? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger train traveling from Vijayawada to Guntur on 18.12.1998 in the evening as alleged? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Vijayawada and Krishna Canal? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the appellant no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal by holding that the death of the deceased does not attract the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? 8 The learned counsel for the applicants contended that on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, the Tribunal dismissed the claim but during the course of inquest, the police seized the ticket and noted the number of the ticket which is meant to travel in a general compartment in a passenger train and hence the deceased was a bonafide passenger and prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal and award compensation to the applicants. 9 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Respondent- Railways contended that the claimants have not produced the ticket and that claimants failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 10 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. There is evidence on record that while he was travelling in a train carrying passengers, he fell down and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants established that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 11 Now coming to the issue of ticket, no doubt, the claimants have not produced ticket to show that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train. But at the same time during the course of investigation, the police conducted inquest wherein the ticket number has been mentioned. Therefore, the objective findings of the Police during investigation are admissible under law. Further, after completion of investigation, the police filed a final report stating that it is a case of untoward incident and there is no foul play in the incident. For the reason that the ticket was not filed, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants. Since the ticket number as mentioned in the inquest report is a general ticket, it does not contain the train in which the person has to travel from one place to another place. In view of the fact that the ticket was not fabricated one and as it was a valid ticket to travel in passenger train, it is sufficient for the purpose of claiming compensation. Hence the Tribunal should have relied upon the recitals of the inquest report and also the final report filed by the Government Railway Police for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the ticket as mentioned in the inquest report is not a genuine or invalid ticket. Hence the claimants are entitled for compensation. 12 In the result, the appeal is allowed and the respondent – Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay Rs.4.00 lakhs to the appellants towards compensation for the death of the deceased with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 9% p.a. till realization. 13 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways contended that with regard to granting of interest, a review petition is filed before the Supreme Court and seeks two months time to deposit the interest. In view of the fact that a review petition is pending before the Supreme Court, the respondent is directed to deposit the interest granted by virtue of this order after two months from today. In respect of compensation, the same shall be deposited forthwith. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the same. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J 11.08.2011 Kvsn