HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.268 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.321 of 1999 dated 16.12.2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the said O.A.A. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the application herein after words. The application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act r/w Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following death of one T.Venkatesh. The claim of the applicants is as follows: The applicants were the wife, children, mother and sisters of the deceased. On 28.03.1999, while going to Shivrampalli railway station, the deceased purchased a ticket in the presence of his friend to go to Vidyanagar but his friend left the station before the deceased boarded a train. The deceased boarded 686 passenger and when the train was moving slowly he slipped and fell down after passing some distance due to the jerks of the train and died on the spot and he was bona fide passenger. Hence, this application. The respondent filed counter denying the claim of the applicants in total with a plea to dismiss the application. The Tribunal framed the issues for trial on the basis of material available as follows. 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased T.Venkatesh? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.686 travelling from Shivarampalli to Vidyanagar on 28.3.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them the widow of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and Zafar was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. On the basis of material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and granted the amount, and hence the present appeal has been preferred. There is no dispute about findings given under the issue No.1, whereas the dispute is about findings under the issue No.3, it is to be examined as to whether sufficient evidence was placed in support of the claim of the applicants that he was bona fide passenger herein and whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and its order is sustainable in law. POINT: It is the contention of learned advocate for the respondent that the deceased tried to get out of the train from its off side and the inquest report shows that no ticket was seized from him and A.W.2 examined as eye-witness for the purchase of the ticket he was not examined at the time of inquest over the dead body and doctor who conducted postmortem examination was also not examined and there was no eye-witness to the accident and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at in correct conclusions and the orders passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation is not tenable. A.W.2 clearly deposed in support of the claim of the applicants about accompanying the deceased to the railway station and seeing the deceased purchasing the ticket and also seeing the deceased leaving the place. It is also his evidence that he was not aware of the incident immediately and subsequently he was informed about the incident. Further it is not his claim that he purchased any flat form ticket to go into the railway station while accompanying the deceased. However otherwise the evidence of A.W.2 was not rebutted. So the fact that he was not examined at the time of inquest of the dead body should not be taken seriously and similarly, non-purchase of any flat form ticket also need not be taken seriously when there is evidence otherwise to uphold the claim of the applicants. Further as per the inquest his body was totally damaged. Under those circumstances, it must be held that the ticket was lost and therefore non-seizure of the ticket at the time of inquest over the dead body should not be taken very seriously. Further, it is important that the deceased is said to be a businessman and probably such person would not have tried to travel by any train without ticket. Further it is a well established principle of law that the railways have to establish under those circumstances that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train, but no official of the railways was examined before the Court to do so. Further the act of the deceased would not come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124(A) of Railways Act to deny the claim of the applicants as laid down in the decisions reported in M.P.Rajkumar and another v Union of India[1] and Union of India v Baburao Kodekar and others[2]. The Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to right conclusions, and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 28th February, 2011 PNV [1] 1993 ACJ 848 [2] 2002(4) ALD 310