IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.802 of 2008. Date:30.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Shaik Gaffar and others. .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 23.04.2008, in O.A.A.No.76 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 read with Sections 124-A and 125 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 Shaik Ghousya (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 09.03.2003 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant No.2 is the married daughter and applicant Nos.3 to 5 are the sons of the deceased. On 09.03.2003, the deceased, with a view to go to her brother’s place at Vetapalem, went to Nidubrolu Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket bearing No.19313238 to travel from Nidubrolu to Vetapalem, boarded train No.E163 passenger and while she was standing at the door, due to heavy rush of passengers and as the train started suddenly with a jerk, slipped and fell down from the running train at Nidubrolu Railway Station itself, and sustained serious injuries, and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the train bearing No.E163 passenger arrived Nidubrolu Railway Station at 9.21 hours and left at 9.25 hours, whereas the ticket mentioned was issued at 9.51 hours and therefore, the ticket was planted for the purpose of claiming compensation from the railway administration fraudulently. The deceased tried to board the running train from off-side, which is prohibited and hence, it is not a case of accidental fall from train in an untoward incident, and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants, and prayed for dismissal of the 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 Shaik Ghouse? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.E163 passenger travelling from Nidubrolu to Vetapalem on 09.03.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from train at Nidubrolu Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1, R-2 and R-2/2 to 2/4. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and she died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 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 the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train and therefore, in the absence of any evidence, granting of compensation is untenable; that therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.3 would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 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 with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Insofar as the aspect of untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased died by falling accidentally from a running train and sustained injuries, and died. The police, after coming to know about the incident, registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. At the time of conducting inquest, they noticed a ticket with the deceased to travel in a passenger train. The ticket number has been mentioned in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under Law. Therefore, there is no possibility for any person to put the ticket on the body of the deceased after the incident. Even though there is a discrepancy with regard to the time of issuance of the ticket, A.W.3, who is the Booking Clerk, categorically stated that he issued a ticket to the deceased to travel in a passenger train. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation to the applicants. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.802 OF 2008 Date:30.08.2011 AMD