THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 284 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal at the instance of the Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 14-12-2007 in O.A.A.No.354 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 04-12-2003, the deceased-Koki Siva Reddy purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.441 to go to Baptla from Chinnaganjam and since the train was over crowded, the deceased was standing near the door way of the train and due to the speed and jerks of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants, being dependents of the deceased, filed a claim under Section 16 of the R.C.T. Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondents filed their reply denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger since the report of the Key-man revealed that one male person aged 20 years suspected fallen on the side of the railway track with severe head injury, and that there was no eyewitness to the incident, and hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.441 passenger traveling from Chinnaganjam to Bapatla on 04-12-2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whwther the Applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal on 14-12-2007 allowed the claim awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 60 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same failing which it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of due till payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Union of India have filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence adduced by the respondents to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train and that they have not produced any valid ticket to travel in the passenger train and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the evidence of A.W. 2 is clear to show that the deceased purchased the ticket, therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that there is no dispute about the untoward incident. Further, he also contended that the respondents are entitled to the interest from the date of application till the date of award. 9. For awarding compensation under Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, two requirements have to be satisfied. There must be untoward incident and in that incident, person died or sustained injuries should be a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the railway track and the same was noticed by the Key-man, who in-turn, informed about the incident to the Station Superintendent. Based on the report of Key- man, police registered a case under Ex.A-1. The police also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. After the inquest, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of falling down from a running train. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, opined that the injuries he noticed could be possible by falling from a running train. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 10. Coming to the question as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, no doubt, the respondents have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But at the same time, the evidence of A.W.2, who was present at the time of deceased purchasing ticket, is very clear that the deceased purchased ticket to travel in the passenger train. The statement of A.W.2 with regard to the purchase of ticket by the deceased remained unchallenged. There was no cross-examination on this aspect. Once the fact has been stated by the witness and the same has not been denied or disputed in the cross-examination, it can be said that the said fact is to be admitted. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The appellant-railway administration has not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, considering this aspect, the trial Court has rightly granted compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the award granted by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 16th August 2011 kvr