IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1030 OF 2006 Between: Mohammad Mohamood Ali and another .....APPELLANTS AND The Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1030 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 17.08.2006, in O.A.A.No.232 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Jilani (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The deceased with a view of get down from the train at Viakarabad along with his fellow passenger, came to the door of the compartment before the train stopped and due to the sudden jerk of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries resulting in his death. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways opposed the application on the ground that the deceased was trying to get down from the running train before it halted and in the process, he came under the wheels of the train and received injuries, which resulted in his death due to his negligence. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Honourable members of the Bench differed in their opinion as to whether or not the deceased had died of injuries in an untoward incident. The Member (Judicial) was of the opinion that this is a case where the deceased had died of injuries in an untoward incident, whereas Member (Technical) was of the view that the deceased died of self-inflicted injuries, as a result of which railway is not liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”). 5. As there was a difference of opinion between the Members, the matter was referred to the Chairman. The learned Chairman held that as there was discrepancy in the evidence of AW.2, his evidence has been disbelieved and ultimately, the claim of the applicants is dismissed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that since the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train and that he died in an untoward incident as he sustained severe head injuries, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as prayed for and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that because there was discrepancy in the evidence of AW.2 with regard to the falling down of the deceased from the train, the Tribunal rightly held that it is not a case of accidental fall from the passenger train and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Act two requirements have to be satisfied viz., (1) there is an untoward incident in which the person received injuries or died and (2) the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled for compensation. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket. The ticket is marked as Ex.A1. That exhibit is not shown to be invalid or incorrect ticket. Therefore, from the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train as on the date of incident. Now, it has to be seen whether the deceased had fallen from the train accidentally and died in an untoward incident. 11. AW.2 is said to be the eye-witness to the untoward incident. According to him, while the deceased was standing at the door so as to get down from the train, due to the sudden jerk of the train, he fell down and sustained injuries. Whereas, in the cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was getting down from the train after the train stopped on the platform. So, basing on this discrepancy the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants. A stray admission in the cross- examination cannot be taken as a sole circumstance so as to discredit the credibility of a witness. Some discrepancies are bound to occur even in case of a truthful witness, who made to testify about the incident after lapse of years. The incident had taken place in the year 2001, whereas the witness was deposing in the Court in the year 2005 i.e., after lapse of several years. So, this discrepancy would not in any manner affect the main fabric of the appellants’ case. The deceased falling from the running train appears to be correct considering the nature of injuries sustained by him. The deceased sustained several injuries on the head including the breakage of the skull and other injuries all over the body. If a person falls from a train, which was stopped on the platform, the possibility of sustaining severe injuries can be ruled out. From the nature of injuries, it can safely be said that the deceased had fallen from a running train as spoken to by AW.2. It is not a case where the case falls under any one of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A of the Act. Therefore, under misconception of evidence, the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 17.08.2006, in O.A.A.No.232 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. The appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the Award till the date of realization, which shall be shared equally by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 06, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1030 OF 2006 April 06, 2011