HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.913 of 2006 Dated.25-02-2011 Between: Chinthakrinda Markandeyulu and another. - - - Appellants/ Applicants. And The Union of India, Represented by the General Manger, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. This Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.913 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against dismissal of O.A.A. No.281 of 2004 rejecting the claim of the appellants/applicants to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following the death of the deceased Sri C. Poornachandra Rao. The father and mother of the deceased filed the application against the respondent. 2. The application was filed against the respondent under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 for paying the said compensation in favour of the applicants-appellants. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application. 4. The case of the applicant is as follows : On 14-06-2004, the deceased went to Repalle Railway station and purchased a general ticket to travel to Bhattiprolu and later he along with his elder brother who came to the railway station boarded Train No.415 at 6.30 P.M., and when the train reached Bhattiprolu railway station, the deceased who was nearby its door and who wanted to get down from the train slipped and fell down due to which, he received injuries and died on the spot instantaneously. He happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the application. 5. On behalf of the respondent, written statement has filed totally denying the claim of the applicants and further contending that the matter was not reported to the concerned authority and the keyman of the respondent found the dead body between Km 22/14-23/1 near Penumarru Railway Station quite away from Bhattiprolu Railway station and no such untoward incident took place and hence, the application should be dismissed. 6. On the strength of the pleas taken, the Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.415 passenger traveling from Repalle to Bhattiprolu on 14-06-2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined himself as A.W.1 and also got examined another one as AW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, its clerk-in-charge of Bhattiprolu railway station was examined as R.W.2. and its keyman was examined as R.W.1 but they were not cross-examined. 8. The trial court observed under the issue No.1 that the applicant should be entitled to necessary compensation and payment subject to filing of relevant Family Member Certificate issued by concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, and the evidence AW.2 who was examined as eye witness happened to be not trustworthy and further observed that as per the inquest report the ticket was seized from the dead body, but even supposing that the deceased tried to get down from the train while it was in motion holding valid ticket, it would amount to negligence and carelessness on his part and therefore he would not be entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 9. Therefore it is to be mainly examined as to whether it is established that the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train/not happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train. It is very pertinent to note here that no ticket said to have been purchased by the deceased was produced before the Tribunal. Further, the evidence of AW.1 who is not an eye witness is based on information given to him about the accident and other circumstances and therefore his evidence is not sufficient to come to any conclusion about the accident in question. Further, AW.2 deposed that he along with the deceased traveled by the train and he got down from the train whereas, while the deceased was trying to get down from the train due to the sudden jerks of the train, the deceased fell down and it is also according to him that he traveled in the train by holding a season ticket and the deceased traveled in the train by purchasing a second class general ticket. Later, he deposed that the incident took place at Repalle railway station whereas, actually according to the applicants it took place at Bhattiprolu railway station and further he deposed that after the accident the Station Manager came to the spot and he informed about the incident to him. But, Ex.A-1 shows that the information was given at 13-20 hours on 15-06-2004, whereas, according to RW.1 the train left Repalle station at 21-45 hours and arrived at Bhattiprolu railway station at 22-09 hours on 14-06-2004 and further according to RW.1 he saw the dead body on 15-06-2004 and as per para 4 of the inquest report, the deceased was seen by his brother on 14-06-2004 while the deceased was alive and according to RW.2 nobody informed him about the accident. All these circumstances clearly establish that AW.2 is not a true witness and he gave false evidence for the purpose of the case. It clearly proves that being a brother of the deceased he got interest towards the applicants and hence he gave evidence accordingly. Hence his evidence is to be rejected. 10. Further though as per the inquest report the ticket was seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased at the time of inquest over the dead body, when the evidence of AW.2 examined as an eye witness is to be rejected and the evidence of RW.2 provides that no untoward incident was reported to him whereas there is no reason to reject his evidence, he being a respectable person/respectable authority the objective findings noted in the inquest report can not be accepted, it appears that the same story was created for the purpose of the case. Hence, it is disproved that he traveled by the train as a passenger or a bona fide passenger of the train. By virtue of Section 2 (29) of the Act, a passenger is a person who holds a valid ticket while traveling in a train, whereas the circumstances of the case amply prove that he was not holding valid ticket. If he traveled by a reservation compartment then it is for the Railways to establish that the relevant chart does not show his name as one of the passengers therein and if such a chart is not produced an adverse inference can be drawn. The definition of passenger is so legislated to distinguish passengers who traveled by trains holding valid tickets and passengers who trvelled by trains without holding any valid tickets. If it is the intention of the legislation to cover all the victims of railway accidents, such a distinction would not have been made. Clearly the intention of the legislation is to exclude such passengers who do not travel by the trains or who travel by the trains without holding valid tickets from the purview of the benefits provided under the Act. 11. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date.25-02-2011 Dsh/Dvs.