IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.308 of 2008 Date:19.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And T.Kantha Rao and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.01.2008, in O.A.A.No.352 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Thamma Sankaramma (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 02.08.2003 was allowed. 2. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter respectively of the deceased. On 02.08.2003, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased came to Ongole Railway Station and purchased a journey ticket upto Vijayawada and boarded train No.2763 Padmavathi Express. As the train was heavily crowded, the deceased tried to go inside, but the train started suddenly with a jerk, as a result of which, she lost balance, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between the train and platform at Ongole Railway Station, and died. 3. Railways denied the averments in their written statement and submitted that in the inquest report, in column No.9, it was mentioned that the deceased, while attempting to board moving train bearing No.2763 on 02.08.2003, fell down and died, and hence, it is clearly evident that the death of the deceased was only due to her own conduct in attempting to board a moving train and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, granted compensation. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased; that the applicants failed to produce the valid ticket to travel in a passenger train; and so, the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that A.W.2 was present at the time of deceased purchasing a ticket and also at the time of accidental falling from the running train, and her evidence would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal, and also grant interest from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till the date of passing of the order. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of 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 exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Insofar as the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Divisional Railway Manager report would clearly go to show that it was a case of deceased falling from a running train and therefore, it comes within the meaning of untoward incident. Ex.A-5-final report filed by the police would go to show that the death of the deceased was not a suspicious death. The only question is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. There cannot be any dispute that the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. The applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, but however, they examined A.W.2, eye witness, who was present at the time when the deceased purchased a ticket, and saw the deceased while trying to board the train, falling down accidentally in between the compartment and the platform and sustained injuries. She was also examined as eye witness to the incident during inquest. The presence of A.W.2 was established beyond preponderance of probability. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. Practically, the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. Her statement to the effect that the deceased purchased ticket also remained unchallenged. Once a fact is stated by one witness and the same is not denied or disputed in the cross examination, it can be inferred that the said fact is admitted. From the evidence of A.W.2, it is established that the deceased, having purchased a ticket, was trying to board the train and accidentally fell from the train, sustained injuries and died. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the railway administration does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and that order needs no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.308 of 2008 Date:19.08.2011 AMD