THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2009 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 12-08-2009 in O.A.A No.85 of 2005 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/- for the death of Chutturu Rambabu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to pay the said amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter at 9% p.a. till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that the deceased with a view to return to Hyderabad from Tuni to join his job, came to Tuni Railway Station on 21-03-2005 along with his brother Lacha Babu and another Reddy Nageswar Rao, purchased one II class train journey ticket from Tuni to Secunderabad for himself and two platform tickets for other two members. The deceased boarded train No.7007 Visakhapatnam-Hyderabad Godavari Express in II Class general compartment. While travelling, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train during night hours in between Badampudi and Chebrolu Railway Stations due to speed jolts and jerks of the train, as a result, he received severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that night patrolman reported that one male body about 25-35 years found dead at K.M. 528/21-19 on up line track and the said body was not obstructing for the passage of trains and except this, there was no untoward incident reported on that particular day and as per the version of the Guard, there was no untoward incident and no one informed regarding any unusual thing to him and also put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased under Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be an 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 carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the applicants have not produced ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that A.W.2 is the person who was present at the time when the deceased was purchasing the ticket, that there is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2, that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The key man of the Station noticed the dead body of the deceased and sent a message to the concerned officials. Police registered a case, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. Therefore, from the evidence, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 10. With regard to bona fide passenger, the applicants have not produced valid ticket to show that the deceased was travelling in a train with a valid ticket. But the applicants have examined A.W.2 who categorically stated that he went to the Railway Station along with the deceased and dropped the deceased at the Railway Station and at that time, he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket. If the evidence of A.W.2 is found to be acceptable, then it can be relied upon. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of A.W.2 to discredit his testimony. Practically, the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. If the evidence of A.W.2 is taken into consideration, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with a valid ticket. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 28-09-2011 Hsd