THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 1039 of 2003 O R D E R: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is directed against an order made in O.A.A. No. 83 of 1999 dated 24.9.2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by the appellants-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) on account of death of the husband of 1st applicant in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.227-Passenger at Parvatipuram town railway station, was dismissed. It appears, appellants made a claim for Rs.4.00 lakhs as compensation on account of death of the husband of 1st appellant, namely, M.Jammayya, in an untoward incident of accidental fall from Train No.227-Passenger at Parvatipuram railway station, on 7.8.1998. It is the case of the appellants that on 7.8.1998 the deceased Jammayya came to Parvatipuram town railway station and purchased ticket bearing No.20136 from Parvatipuram town to Bobbili, with an intention to board train No.227-passenger, which was on platform No.2. He crossed platform No.1 as there was no over-bridge and while boarding train No.227, he was thrown out of the compartment due to sudden jerk of the train and heavy rush at the door and fell down on the adjacent track and was ran over by a light engine coming in the opposite direction, due to which he sustained injuries and died. The Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Parvatipuram town declared him dead. Whereas, respondent-Railways filed written statement through Deputy Chief Commercial Manager and denied the averments made in the application and pleaded that no untoward incident occurred at Parvatipuram town railway station and that the deceased had not fallen down from train No.227-passenger and that as per the inquest report held by the police, it was clearly a case of run over by light engine while the deceased was crossing the railway track to go to platform No.2 . It was further denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the appellants are dependents of the deceased. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased M. Jammayya? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.227 passenger traveling from Parvatipuram town to Boboli railway station on 7.8.1998? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Parvatipuram town railway station as alleged? 4. To what relief? 1st applicant filed affidavit in support of her case besides filing the affidavit of Chintada Lakshmayya as AW-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. Whereas, the respondent did not choose to adduce any evidence. However, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that there was no untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Further, it gave a finding that the applicants, who are widow and children of the deceased, are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act. Further, in view of the evidence of AW-2 and that the ticket was found on the dead body, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.227-passenger. Aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a victim of an untoward incident and thus denying compensation to the appellants, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the Tribunal below, while answering the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the appellants, ought not to have held issue No.4 against the appellants and in favour of the respondent, in as much as the respondent had not led any evidence whatsoever except filing the written statement through the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased had accidentally fallen down from train No.227-passenger and when he was lying on track No.1, a light engine suddenly came in opposite direction and hit the deceased, due to which he received grievous injuries, resulting in his death. Therefore, this is nothing but an untoward incident, which occurred in the precincts of the railway station. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that Parvatipuram is a small railway station and there is no over-bridge to cross the railway track. Every passenger has to cross the track for reaching the other side platform. Because of traveling on a passenger train, the deceased was subjected to this accident. If there was no necessity to travel on a train, the deceased would not have met with this accident. It is the bounden duty of the Railways to provide sufficient measures for the safety of the passengers. Once a person who purchased a valid journey ticket becomes a victim of an untoward incident within the precincts of a railway station, he or his dependants are entitled for compensation and such incident must be deemed as ‘untoward incident’, as defined under Section 123(c) and the explanation given under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal below that there was no untoward incident is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for compensation. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways Sri B.H.R. Chowdary strenuously contended that the deceased was not hit by Train No.227-passenger and there was no eye-witness to the incident and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any untoward incident as alleged by the appellants. In fact, it was the negligence of the deceased in crossing platform No.1 track due to which he was hit by light engine coming in opposite direction. Thus, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation and the Tribunal below has rightly held so and, therefore, the Order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The Tribunal below has categorically held that the deceased had a valid ticket to travel on train No.227-passenger from Parvatipuram to Bobbili and he was a bona fide passenger. The accident is also not denied. It is even the case of the respondent that the deceased was hit by light engine which was passing on track No.1 between two platforms. Further, it is also found by the Tribunal that the appellants are the dependents of the deceased Jammayya. Under the above circumstances, the only aspect that needs to be seen is whether the accident occurred on 7.8.1998 at Parvatipuram railway station causing the death of Jammayya can be said to be an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and whether the appellants are entitled for any compensation? In this regard, the record would indicate that nobody was examined on behalf of the Railways and no affidavit was filed by any person on behalf of the Railways except the written statement filed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager. In the affidavit filed by AW- 1 – wife of the deceased, it is stated as follows: “On 7.8.1998, my deceased husband Matha Jammayya went to Parvathipuram town railway station, in order to go to Bobbili to see our children, who are staying in Hostel and purchased Railway General ticket bearing No.20136 at Parvathipuram railway station. By that time the train of 227 passenger was on platform No.2. I respectfully submit that in Parvathipuram Town Railway Station, there was no Railway over-bridge to reach the platform No.2 by the time of the accident i.e. 7.8.1998. Every passenger used to cross the Railway tracks to reach the platform No.2 and 3 with high risk. Accordingly, having heard from the eyewitnesses that my husband Matha Jammayya also crossed the Railway tracks and catched the said passenger train of 227 and tried to enter the Railway compartment, the train moved and due to sudden jerk of the passenger train, my late husband Matha Jammayya, has fallen from the compartment on the adjacent Railway track and suddenly one railway light engine came on that railway track and ran over on my husband’s body and as a consequence, my husband sustained injuries and died”. Though AW-1 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to discredit her testimony. In the cross-examination of AW-2, a suggestion was put to him that there is an over-bridge at Parvatipuram railway station, which was denied by AW-2. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants that there was no over-bridge and there was negligence on the part of the Railways and the accident was an untoward incident etc., was not rebutted by the Railways by adducing any contra evidence. Though the incident is not denied and even it is the case of the respondent-Railways that the light engine driver himself stated that the light engine had hit the deceased, the said light engine driver was not examined. Therefore, the entire evidence of the appellants-applicants remained unrebutted. Further, it was the case of the appellants-applicants that Jammaiah died having fallen on track No.1 while boarding train No.227 on track No.2 due to sudden jerk and heavy rush. Therefore, in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence to show that the deceased died due to his own negligence while he was crossing the railway track at the platform, the statement of the Railways ought not to have been taken as gospel truth by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that it was not an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Further, the fact that there was no over-bridge at the relevant point of time at Parvatipuram Railway Station has been asserted in the application as well as in the affidavit filed by the claimants, but no evidence has been let in by the respondent-Railways to prove that there was an over-bridge and the deceased ought to have utilized that bridge instead of crossing track No.1 to reach train No.227 on the other track. No suggestion was given to any of the witnesses that the deceased had not fallen down while boarding train No.227-passenger due to jerk and heavy rush. All the assertions made in the claim petition or in the affidavits filed by the appellants-applicants are sought to be denied just by saying that the accident was not an untoward incident as defined under the Act, without adducing any evidence. Further, it is not the case of the respondent-Railways that train No.227- passenger was not halted on track No.2. Once train No.227-passenger halted on track No.2, in the absence of an over-bridge, the general practice of the passengers in such small railway stations is to cross the other tracks and reach the track on which the train is halted. The non- examination of the driver of the light engine, who is said to have reported the matter to the Station Master, is also fatal to the case of the respondent-Railways. It is also not the case of the respondent that the driver of light engine was not negligent. Under those circumstances, after going through the entire record, I am of the considered opinion that Jammayya died due to an untoward incident in the precincts of the railway station of Parvatipuram, between two platforms, while boarding train No.227- passenger, by falling down due to sudden jerk on track No.1 and hit by light engine which came suddenly in opposite direction and, therefore, the appellants-applicants, being the dependents of the deceased Jammayya, are entitled for compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed holding: 1. that the appellants are the legal dependents of the deceased Matha Jammayya; 2. that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.227-passenger; 3. that the appellants-applicants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) for the death of Matha Jammayya with 12% interest thereon, from the date of application till the date of realization. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date:9-7-2010. MVB.