IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.526 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Smt. P. Mallamma @ Mallu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.526 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 06.03.2006, in O.A.A.No.216 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of P. Ravi Kumar (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the passenger train, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Applicant No.1 is the mother, and applicant Nos.2 to 4 are the brothers and sister, of the deceased respectively. The deceased while travelling in train No.336, Kazipet – Nagpur passenger, from Pothkapally to Ramagundem with a journey ticket, slipped accidentally and fell down from the train between Raghavapur and Ramagundam Railway Stations; sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that no untoward incident had happened between Raghavapur and Ramagundam Railway Stations on the fateful day; that there was no eye witness to the alleged fall of the deceased from the running train; that the fall, if any, may be due to the negligent act of the deceased himself and that the deceased not being a bona fide passenger, the respondent – railways is not liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Pittala Ravi Kumar? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.336 Kazipet – Nagpur Passenger, travelling from Pothkapally to Ramagundam on 19.07.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Raghavapur and Ramagundem Railway Stations? 4. To what relief” 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined but no document was marked. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7 . Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased had fallen down from the train due to his own negligence; that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Act two requirements have to be satisfied viz., (1) there is an untoward incident in which the person received injuries or died and (2) the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled for compensation. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. Police after registration of case, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and found certain cut injuries on the dead body. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. Similarly, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to necropsy, and the doctor, who conducted the necropsy, opined that the deceased must have received those injuries in a train accident. It is also not in dispute that the police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C., stating that the deceased died accidentally and it is not a case of foul play. So, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the passenger train was established. Now, the question is whether the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel in train No.336, Kazipet – Nagpur passenger. 12. No doubt, police while conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased did not seize any ticket from the dead body of the deceased. But, at the same time, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, AW.2 was examined, who spoke about the deceased purchasing the ticket to travel in the passenger train. That evidence of AW.2 remained unchallenged. There is no contra evidence adduced by the railway - administration to show that the case of the deceased falls under any one of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A of the Act. When the evidence of AW.2 is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in passenger train, the respondents are entitled to the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation to the respondents. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 06, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.526 OF 2006 April 06, 2011