THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.919 OF 2006 DATED: 29-03-2011. Between Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. … Appellant And 1.P.Brahmaiah and others …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.919 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 05-06-2006 in O.A.A No.142 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Pesarlanka Ramaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. Brief facts are that on 29-06-1999, the deceased travelled in passenger train No.404 from Tenali to Pallikonda and on his journey, he slipped and fell own between Chinnavarur and Jampani Railway Stations from running train and the Gangman had taken him for medical treatment at Repalle and while undergoing treatment, he died. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement stating that the alleged incident will not come under the purview of Section 123 (c) (2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Pesarlanka Ramaiah? 2.Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Train No.404 Tenali-Repalle passenger traveling from Tenali to Pallikonda on 29-06-1999? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Chinnaravur and Jampani Railway Stations? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was got marked. The doctor was examined as C.W.1. On behalf of the Railways, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket and accidentally fell from the train, that he sustained injuries and died and accordingly allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directed the Railways to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of order or else interest at 6% per annum shall accrue from the due date till payment. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train, that in the absence of any evidence, it can be said that he was a ticket less traveller and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased ticket at the Railway Station, that while he was going in the train, he fell from the train accidentally, that there is a possibility of loosing ticket in the journey, that the trial Court after considering the evidence on record, rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. 11. The death of the deceased is as a result of falling from the running train. Inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of fall from the train. Similarly, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries. Even the Railway Administration did not dispute or deny about the death of the deceased. The only question to be considered is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. No doubt, the applicants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased purchased ticket. Similarly police did not seize any ticket during the course of inquest. But that does not mean, he was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. 12. A.W.2 is the person who went along with the deceased to the Railway Station. He categorically stated that the deceased purchased ticket to travel in the passenger train. Practically the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. That is the reason why the trial Court rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. In the absence of any reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 29-03-2011 Hsd