IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.837 OF 2006 Between: Pitchaiah Gari Susheela and others .....APPELLANTS AND The Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.837 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 03.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.45 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, consequent on the death of Pitchaiah Gari Venkataiah (hereinafter 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: Applicants are the wife and children of the deceased respectively. On 15.06.2000, the deceased boarded train No.6011 to travel from Cuddapah to Chennai and when the train started moving, with sudden jolts and jerks, the deceased slipped accidentally and fell down from the running train at Cuddapah Railway Station due to which his body was mutilated, and he died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways resisted the claim of the applicants stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train; that it is not a case of accidental fall within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), and that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Pitchiahgari Venkataiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.6011 Express travelling from Cuddapah to Chennai on 15.06.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Cuddapah Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the act of imprudence and dismissed the claim of the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal having found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train, ought to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent – railways contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased; that as the deceased was aged about 70 years with all ailments, the incident had happened; that therefore, the railway - administration is not liable to pay any compensation; that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. 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. 9. The case of the appellants is that while the deceased was boarding in train No.6011 at Cuddapah to go to Chennai, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is established beyond preponderance of probability because at the time of conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased, police recovered from the pant pocket of the deceased a valid II Class free pass to travel in an express train. Therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. The railway - administration has not adduced any evidence to show that the pass recovered from the dead body of the deceased is invalid or fabricated so as to dismiss the claim of the appellants. 10. Coming to the untoward incident, the railway - administration can only resist the claim petition if there is any proof to show that the case of the railways attracts any one of the clauses under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. It is neither a case where the deceased committed suicide nor a case where the injuries are self-inflicted. So, in the absence of any evidence, when the case of the appellants does not fall under any of the clauses under proviso to Section 124A of the Act, it can be inferred that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the train and fell in between the platform and train, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act. The claims Tribunal has not considered these aspects and came to wrong conclusion. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellants with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of this Award till the date of realization, which is to be shared equally by all the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 23, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.837 OF 2006 March 23, 2011