IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.849 OF 2005 Between: Kandrakota Santha .....APPELLANT AND The Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.849 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 17.03.2005, in O.A.A.No.101 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim of the applicant was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 08.04.1999, the deceased, K. Raja Sekher, who is son of the applicant, was travelling from Godavari to Tadepalligudem in train No.474, Kakinada to Tirupathi passenger, in general compartment after purchasing the ticket. At about 09:40 hours at Godavari Railway Station when the train started, with a jerk and sudden movement, the deceased fell down accidentally under the said moving train and as a result he sustained severe multiple crush injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry and while undergoing treatment he died at about 12:30 P.M. on the same day. Police registered a case, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and also subjected the dead body of the deceased to post- mortem examination. 3. The respondent filed the written statement stating that there was no accidental fall from the running train and the deceased has not accidentally fallen down from the running train, but he fell down due to his negligence and carelessness and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicant proved that she is the only dependent of the deceased Kandrakota Raja Sekhar? 2. Whether the Applicant proved that late Kandrakota Raja Sekher was a bonafide passenger traveling by train No.474 Kakinada – Tirupathi passenger on 08.04.1999? 3. Whether the Applicant further proved that late Kandrakota Raja Sekher became victim of an untoward incident and died in the manner as narrated at para 6 of the claim petition? 4. To what relief?” 5. To substantiate the case of the applicant, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R-1 was got marked. 6. The claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and accordingly dismissed the claim. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicant. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of conducting inquest, police seized the ticket from the shirt pocket of the deceased and therefore, it can be presumed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – railways contended that the evidence of RW.2 would go to show that the ticket was issued after 12 hours on 08.04.1999; that the question of purchasing the ticket at 12:00 hours when the train left at 09:30 A.M. does not arise and therefore, the Tribunal rightly disallowed the claim of the appellant and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Taking place of accident is not in dispute. The deceased was travelling from Godavari to Tadepalligudem in train No.474 Kakinada - Tirupathi passenger. While starting the train, there was a jerk, as a result of which the deceased accidentally fell down and sustained multiple injuries. Immediately he was taken to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry and while undergoing treatment, he died. The inquest report - Ex.A-2 would go to show that the deceased died as a result of multiple crush injuries. Similarly, Ex.A-3 - Post-mortem Examination Report would go to show that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. Even the railways did not deny or dispute about the death of the deceased falling from the running train. 11. Now the question is whether the deceased was bona fide passenger or not? 12. No doubt, RW.2 has stated that ticket bearing No.18304 was issued after 12:00 Noon on 08.04.1999, whereas the train left Godavari Railway Station at 09:33 hours and therefore, the question of purchasing the ticket before 09:00 hours does not arise. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the ticket was planted in the shirt pocket of the deceased subsequently. Admittedly, police seized the said ticket at the time of holding inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. The said fact has been specifically mentioned in the inquest report. After sustaining the injuries, the deceased was taken to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry, and thereafter, the doctor examined and declared him dead at 12:30 P.M. Since no other close relation accompanied the deceased and in view of the fact that the dead body was in the mortuary of the Government Hospital and thereafter, the police conducted the inquest, there was no scope for any other person to keep the ticket stealthily in the shirt pocket of the deceased. In view of the circumstances, the evidence of RW.2 cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of RW.2 to the effect that the ticket was issued after 12:00 hours on 08.04.1999. But, from the circumstances, it indicates that the deceased, after purchasing the ticket, boarded the passenger train at Godavari Station so as to go to Tadepalligudem, and because of sudden jerk of the train, the deceased accidentally fell from the train. Therefore, the deceased can be said to be a bona fide passenger of the train. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the Tribunal and came to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicant and she is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 18, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.849 OF 2005 June 18, 2010