IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.4465 OF 2003 Date:04.02.2011 Between:- R.Shantha Kumari and others ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 20-08- 2003 in O.A.A.No.212 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants with regard to grant of compensation consequent on the death of the deceased in a railway accident that took place on 14-08-1998 was dismissed on the ground that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the inquest report, which was earliest document, would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket travelling from Simhachalam to Bobbili of train No.230 passenger train and in between the two stations, the deceased, as a result of untoward incident, fell down from the train and sustained injuries and died and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the appellants. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Railways contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in the train and unless it is established by the appellants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation and none of the findings of the Tribunal are shown to be perverse and they are based upon proper evidence on record. 4.Now the point for determination is whether the appellants are entitled for compensation? 5. There cannot be any dispute that when the death of a person occurred resulting from an untoward incident, the claimants are entitled for the compensation. To claim the compensation, under the Railways Act, 1999, first of all, the claimants ought to have establish that the death of the deceased has taken place in an untoward incident; and the death must have resulted while travelling in a passenger train; and that at the time of travelling, the person must be holding a valid ticket to travel in the train. If these three ingredients are established, then the claimants are entitled for the compensation. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased resulting in an untoward incident. The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died as a result of severe multiple injuries. But the question is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in the train or not. P.W.1, who was the wife of the deceased, was not admittedly present at the time of the incident. She came to know about the incident four days after the death of her husband. So when she was not present at the time of incident, she is not a competent witness to speak whether the deceased was travelling in the train as a bonafide passenger or not. The entire case of the appellants rests upon the inquest report. The purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain apparent cause of death of a person, as required under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). How he died, in what manner, whether he was having a ticket or not, are not falling under the ambit of Section 174 Cr.P.C. The trial Court disbelieved the inquest report on the ground that the finding of the ticket bearing No.60998 was inserted at the end of the column Nos.14 and 15 of the inquest report and as a matter of fact, the inquest report appears to be a suspicious document and the Tribunal has not placed any implicit reliance on this document. As a matter of fact, it is the burden of the appellants to summon the original inquest report from the Court or the copy of the same from the person who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. No such steps have been taken by the appellants to dispel the cloud of suspicion over the insertion of the ticket number in the inquest report. Even the Tribunal tried to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, who held inquest on the dead body, but he has not produced the original. So the appellants seem to have suppressed the filing of the certified copy of the document or summoning the original from the Court. Therefore, the said suppression can be taken as an adverse inference against the appellants. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the deceased was travelling in the train as a passenger with a valid ticket, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 6. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 4th February, 2011 AMD