THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.512 of 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order made in O.A.A.No.20 of 1999 dated 31.3.2005 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their son Nandagiri Raju, who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the Train, was allowed. Appellant is South Central Railway and respondents are applicants-claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. Applicants laid claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their son Nandagiri Raju who alleged to have died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from a train. According to the applicants, the deceased Nandagiri Raju and his father Venkata Ramanaiah went to Cuddapah for purchasing agricultural implements. As the same were not available at Cuddapah, they went to Cuddapah Railway Station on the night of 6.2.1996. Ramanaiah purchased train journey ticket from Cuddapah to Hyderabad for his son and sent him by Train No.7430 Tirupati – Hyderabad Rayalaseema Express in general compartment with a cash of Rs.2,000/-. After departure of the train, Venkata Ramanaiah, father of the deceased, left to his native village. While traveling, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said train at KM No.412/10-11 between South cabin and Junction cabin of Gooty railway station and was dragged about 10 sleepers by the train, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The Respondent-Railway filed counter denying averments made in the application and inter alia contended that the applicants are not dependants of the deceased and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the injuries suffered by him were self-inflicted and that it was a case of suicide. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the applicants proved that they are the only dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the applicants further prove that the deceased Nandagiri Raju was a bona fide passenger traveled by Train No.430 Express on 6.2.1996? 3. Whether the applicants further proves that the deceased became victim of an untoward incident and died in the manner as narrated at para 6 of the claim petition? 4. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? In support of the case of applicants, first applicant filed his affidavit as A.W.1 and marked documents Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, respondent-Railways have not filed any evidence in support of their case. On a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Railway Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased and the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the Train, therefore granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent-Railways preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.H.R.Choudary strenuously contended that the alleged incident occurred on 6.2.1996 and whereas the claim petition was filed on 25.11.1998, after lapse of more than one year. The limitation for filing the claim petition is only one year. Apart from that the claimants have claimed only Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/-. He further contended that the journey ticket was not available at the time of inquest, therefore it cannot be said that the deceased traveled in the said train and was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in allowing the application. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents- claimants supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no ground is made out calling interference into the order passed by the Tribunal and that the order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. 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. At the outset, it may be necessary to notice the findings recorded by the Tribunal against Issue Nos.2 and 3, which reads as under: “It is to be seen whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Applicant No.1 N.Venkata Ramanaiah is the father of the deceased. He has stated in para 3 of his affidavit that his son was a bachelor and that he along with his son Raju went to Cuddapah to purchase agricultural implements on 6.2.1996. They enquired about the agricultural implements but they were not available there and therefore they were advised to purchase the same from Hyderabad. As such, both went to Cuddapah Railway Station, purchased a second class ticket from Cuddapah to Hyderabad for his son and he was sent by him by Train No.7430 Rayalaseema Express in general compartment with a cash of Rs.2,000/-. After departure of the train, he returned to his native village and on the next day he came to know about the accidental fall of the deceased from the train and his death. He also stated in para 7 that the journey ticket of his deceased son was lost in the accident. It is not disputed that the dead body of the deceased was found in between South Cabin and Junction Cabin at Gooty Railway Station in the morning of 7.2.1996 with multiple injuries. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the ticket might have been lost at the time of the accident as the dead body of the deceased was dragged for certain distance and was found badly injured. He also further contended that the burden lies on the respondent to prove that the deceased was traveling without ticket. He contended that no evidence has been led by the respondent to prove that the deceased was traveling without ticket, therefore, according to him, the deceased was a bona fide passenger. He placed reliance on the case of Union of India v. Bora Lakshmi (2005 (2) ALT 86). In this case also there was evidence of the witness who accompanied the deceased to Railway Station and saw the deceased buying a ticket. The ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that inference drawn by the Tribunal that the ticket might have been lost at the time of inquest report was acceptable. It was held in this case that the burden to prove that the deceased was traveling without ticket lies on the respondent. In the present case also there is testimony of A.W.1 Venkata Ramanaiah, who accompanied the deceased to the Railway Station and purchased ticket for the deceased. There is no rebuttal to this statement by the respondent. In view of this unrebutted statement of Applicant No.1 and further the circumstances of the case as narrated above, we are inclined to hold that the deceased Nandagiri Raju was a bona fide passenger traveled by Train No.430 Express on 6.2.1996. The issue is decided accordingly in affirmative. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the deceased fell down from the train while traveling from Cuddapah to Hyderabad. Ex.A1 is the FIR, which shows that the dead body of the deceased was found lying between South Cabin and Junction Cabin of Gooty Railway Station. Ex.A2 is the inquest report which also supports the version of the applicant that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of multiple injuries suffered by him. These documents concludes that the death was caused due to severe injures caused by the up train at KM 412/10-11 on 7.2.1996. Ex.A3 is the Postmortem report which also corroborates the version of the applicant regarding the time and the cause of the death of the deceased. It is true that there is no eye witness to the said incident. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that it is a case of accidental fall from the train. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case of N.Buchilingam and others v. Union of India (2004(6) ALD 302). In this case it has been held as follows: ‘The fact that the dead body was noticed and recovered by the Railway staff near railway track prima facie discloses that the death of the deceased occurred on account of an accident. The nature of incidents that may result in injuries or death of a bona fide passengers, involving a train is elaborately dealt with in Section 123 of the Railways Act. The term ‘accidental fall’ referred to in clause (c) thereof, does not require that the accident shall be of a particular nature. Once an individual receives injuries or succumbs to them, the liability of the railways arises. It is saved only under certain circumstances referred under Section 124-A of the Act. As long as the circumstances stated therein are not pleaded or proved, the liability against the respondent to pay compensation subsists’. However, the respondent in para 4(ii) of the written statement admitted that a male dead body aged about 30 years found at KM No.412/10-11 in between South Cabin and Junction Cabin by on duty Cabin ASM at 8.30 hrs. on 7.2.1996. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the injuries caused to the deceased could not have been possible on account of falling from the train and being run over. According to him, this is a case of suicide. No evidence has been led by the respondent to prove this contention. The injuries suffered by the deceased have been mentioned in the inquest report as well as in the postmortem report. On perusal of the injuries we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the same could not have been possible by a fall from the train and being run over. The manner how the deceased fell down from the train and how he sustained injuries is not known. There is no expert opinion before us to conclude that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be possible only in case of suicidal act”. From the above, it is clear that there is no substance in the contention that there was a delay in filing the claim petition etc. It was a fact that the claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, but in the meanwhile, since there was an amendment in law, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The contention that ticket was not available on the body of the deceased cannot be countenanced in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal against Issue No.2. Therefore, looking from any angle, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he did not die in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased and the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal calling interference of this Court. The CMA is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 3.9.2010 DA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.512 of 2005 Date: 3rd September, 2010 Between: Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Petitioner And N.Venkata Ramanaiah and another. .. Respondents