THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1031 of 2009 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 06-08-2009 passed in O.A.A.No.67 of 2003, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, was allowed directing the appellant/Railways to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Kodati Yadagiri Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is averred in the application that on 10-07-2002 the deceased along with one Sri Chandra Reddy came to Bellampally Railway Station at 00.00 hours to go to Ramagundam and after purchasing ticket, both of them came to Platform No.1 and that Chandra Reddy went away and the deceased went to Platform No.2 to go by Dakshin Express to Ramagundam and that while boarding the said train, due to heavy rush, the deceased fell down accidentally and died. Hence, the claim application. The Respondent Railways refuted the claim of the applicants and stated that as per the enquiries with the Deputy Station Superintendent, Bellampally it was revealed that as per the information given by the Ticket Collector, one male dead body was lying on down loop line near Railway Protection Force office, on which the message was sent to Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police, Bellampally at 6-40 hrs. Further, as per the Guard who worked on 7022 Express on 10/11.07.2002, the train arrived at 00.21 hrs. and departed at 00.35 hrs. and that it was stopped at Bellampalli for attaching Sr. DSO Saloon RA 11218 and that there was no information of falling of any passenger nor there was any ACP to the train. It is further stated that no ticket was found with the deceased and as such the deceased cannot be treated as a bonafide passenger. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of accident? 2. Whether the deceased died of injuries sustained in an untoward incident, if so, what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled to? 3. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? During trial, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and Chandra Reddy was examined as AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the Ticket Collector Mr.B.Bhavani Prasad was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, decided the issues in favour of the applicants and directed the respondent-Railways to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award, and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the respondent-Railways preferred this appeal. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant contended that the applicants failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the evidence of AW.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased the ticket to travel in a passenger train and there is no other reason to disbelieve his evidence and basing on the evidence, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) the first condition precedent to be proved by the appellants 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 passenger travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then applicants are entitled for compensation. If the respondent- railways want to resist the claim application then it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124- A of the Act. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, the deceased falling from the train is not in dispute. Therefore, the death of the deceased is by a reason of an untoward incident of falling accidentally from the running train. Insofar as the second requirement is concerned, AW.2 was examined to show that the deceased purchased the ticket to travel in the passenger train. Further, AW.2 stated that during inquest, he informed to the police that he along with the deceased came to Bellampally Railway station on 10-07-2002 and that the deceased himself purchased the journey ticket to go to Ramagundam by Dakshin Express and that he was present till the deceased went to Plat form No.2. When the evidence of AW.2 is clear that the deceased purchased the ticket, the initial burden placed on the applicants stand discharged. Therefore, the burden shifts to the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. But no evidence was let in by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed on implicit reliance on the evidence of AW.2, whose presence at the time of incident, is established beyond preponderance of probability. Hence, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, had rightly granted compensation and the same does not need interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 20-08-2011 Prv