IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.708 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 Between:- Darapureddy Devudamma ..Appellant/Applicant And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 24.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.165 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellant/applicant with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of her husband D.Simhadri in a railway accident that took place on 28.04.2000 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The deceased went to Tirupati from Visakhapatnam and returned from Tirupati on 28.04.2000 to Vijayawada by Train No.7405 Tirupati- Hyderabad Krishna Express. After attending some personal work at Vijayawada, again, he went to Vijayawada Railway station and purchased a second class General Express Train Journey Ticket No.31026838 from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam. He intended to go to Gudivada by immediate available Passenger Train No.481 Guntur Narasapur Passenger and from there to catch Train No.7480 Tirupati- Howrah Express to continue his journey upto Visakhapatnam. He boarded Train No.581 and while going inside the compartment, he slipped and accidentally fell down from the running train at Vijayawada platform, received multiple injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the incident was reported to the police. Police registered a case as in Ex.A- 1. 3. The Respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that the case is one of self inflicted injury and not an untoward incident and that the deceased had deliberately attempted to board an incoming and still moving train, holding a suit case in one hand and tried to catch the train with the other hand, in his anxiety to secure a seat, and that the train from which he has fallen down is not the one going to Gudivada but it was coming from Gudivada. The time gap between the arrival and departure of Train No.481 and 7480 at Gudivada is 19.35 and 20.15 respectively with a difference of 40 minutes and denied any liability for payment of any compensation to the applicant. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Darapureddy Simhadri? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of 481 Guntur-Narasapur Passenger, travelling on his way from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam on 28.04.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vijayawada Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. The Tribunal, on suspicion that there was no need for the deceased to go to Gudivada, as he already purchased an express ticket to travel from Vijayawada to his native place Visakhapatnam, and at that point of time, the incident took place, did not believe the case of the applicant and accordingly, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exception under Section 124-A of the Act. 9. The police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased wherein it is stated that the deceased tried to board the train with a suit case and bag and accidentally fell down in between the train and platform and died. R.W.1-Deputy Station Superintendent confirmed that while the deceased was boarding the train along with luggage, accidentally, he fell down and sustained injuries. In the first instance, from the evidence, it can be said that the deceased went to Tirupati and thereafter, he came down to Vijayawada. He purchased an Express ticket to go to Visakhapatnam his native place. But instead of going by Express train to go to Visakhapatnam, he boarded a passenger train to go to Gudivada. The case of the applicant is that as there was some personal work, the deceased went to Gudivada. After attending to the work, the deceased, while boarding the train, accidentally fell down between the compartment and the platform, sustained grievous injuries and died. It is not a case where the deceased tried to commit suicide. He was having a suit case and luggage in his hands and while boarding the train, he accidentally fell down. If the case of the railway administration falls under any one of the clauses to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the burden is on the railway administration to establish the same. No evidence is adduced to show that the case of the deceased falls under any one of the clauses to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The death of the deceased is an untoward incident while boarding the train, which is about to move is not in dispute. The fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger boarded the train with a valid ticket is also not in dispute. As the above mentioned two requirements are satisfied, the appellant is entitled for compensation. 10. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) is granted to the appellant towards compensation with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 24.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.165 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.708 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 AMD