THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.19 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.09.2007 passed in O.A.A.No.98 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the applicants seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the death of one T. Kalyana Chakravarthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the deceased was sent by his master to Podalakur near Nellore to purchase a lorry load of sugar and after finishing his work, while he was returning to Sattenapalli, came to Nellore railway station at 8.00 PM on 18.10.2001 and while travelling by some train, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between Appikatla and Machavaram Railway stations and died of severe injuries. Hence, the applicants who are mother and sister filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the railways. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement denying the fall of the deceased is an untoward incident and that he was a bonafide passenger inasmuch as no train number is mentioned and no journey ticket has been filed and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are sole dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether on 18/19.10.2001 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? iii. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the first applicant herself was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the applicants. On the side of the railways, the Key man of the railway department was examined as R.W.1 but no documents were marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition granting compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs and directed the appellant /railways to deposit the amount of compensation before it within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment, failing which it shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment till realisation. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Railways. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant (Railways) contended that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, that the initial burden stands on the applicants has not been discharged and therefore the applicants are not entitled to the compensation and prays to set aside the impugned award. 9 On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicants contended that the possibility of the missing of the ticket cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that six 50 rupee notes were seized in torn condition from the body of the deceased during the course of inquest and at that point of time, there was a general strike by the R.T.C. and that the police also seized a platform ticket from the pocket of the deceased which suggests that the deceased was a bonafide passenger to travel in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and that when the deceased went to Nellore to purchase the sugar cane worth of one lakh, he would have purchased a ticket to return to the village from Nellore and, therefore, in those circumstances, a presumption can be drawn that the deceased was a bonafide passenger to travel in a train carrying passengers and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and therefore prays to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) two requirements are to be satisfied viz., there was an untoward incident happened; and in that incident the deceased, who was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket, died. When these two requirements are proved or established, the claimants are entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, they can show that the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not in dispute that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. 11 It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found between Appikatla and Machavaram Railway stations by the side of the railway track. The dead body of the deceased was noticed by the key man of the railways and immediately he informed the same to the Station Superintendent who in turn informed the same to the Police. The police registered a case and held inquest over the dead of the deceased and during the course of inquest, the police seized six torn 50 rupee notes and also a platform ticket and some other articles from the body of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The objective findings are seizure of six torn 50 rupee notes, a platform ticket and other articles. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased opined that the death was because of multiple injuries sustained by him. 12 With regard to the second aspect, there cannot be any dispute that the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket in view of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the applicants are asserting that the deceased was a bonafide passenger to travel in a train carrying passengers. The word ‘passenger’ is defined under section 124-A of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’), which reads that a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Therefore, the condition precedent is that a person can be termed as bonafide passenger if he possess a valid pass or a ticket to travel. Admittedly, the police seized no ticket from the deceased during the course of inquest, but they seized a platform ticket on the wearing apparel of the deceased. The clothes on the dead body of the deceased were a jeans pant and a Terri cotton shirt. If really, the deceased purchased a ticket, the police would have noticed at least a torn ticket or damaged ticket as they noticed damaged currency notes. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be presumed that the deceased purchased a ticket at Nellore and that he was travelling in the train carrying passengers. It may be a fact that the RTC was on strike at the relevant point of time and that some body must have accompanied the deceased to the railway station. Even assuming that the deceased went to Nellore for the purpose of purchasing sugar worth more than Rs.1.00 lakh, and at the same time he was having some cash with him to purchase ticket, that does not mean that the deceased had purchased a ticket at Nellore Railway station. There was no explanation given by the applicants as to why the deceased had to purchase a platform ticket and keep the same in his pocket. In view of the same, if really the deceased had purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers, the ticket would have been found in the wearing apparel of the deceased or at any rate the ticket would have been damaged or torn. Therefore, the applicants failed to adduce any oral evidence that the deceased, after purchasing a ticket only, had boarded the train carrying passengers. In the absence of any such material, the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion in awarding compensation to the applicants. As the initial burden cast on the applicants has not been discharged, the onus of proof on the railways may not arise. 13 In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.09.2011 Kvsn