IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.488 OF 2006 Date:25-02-2011 Between:- G.Kumari and others .. Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Tribunal Act’) against order of dismissal dated 15-02-2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.A.No.31 of 2000 filed under Section 16 of the Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one G.Venkateswara Rao (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) was dismissed. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicants are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased. On 25-10-1998, the deceased boarded a train at Rajahmundry to go to Bellampally and at Kazipet, changed another train and fell down and received injuries and died. Further, he being a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants who happened to be his wife, daughter and parents/his dependants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the deceased cannot be considered to be a bona fide passenger of any train during the intervening night of 24/25-10-1998 without placing satisfactory evidence and ultimately the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased G.venkateswar Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of any train? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from any train at Kazipet Railway Station, near ‘A’ Cabin? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and the third of them got himself examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest report, post mortem report, death certificate, copy of final report and legal heir certificate. Further, on behalf of the respondent, nobody was examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining issues against the applicants and dismissed the application. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered as to whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and died having got valid ticket at Kazipet and whether he happened to be a bona fide passenger of any train and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at a right conclusion and the order is tenable under law. 9. It is pertinent to note here that as per the First Information Report, the dead body was traced at 8 a.m. on 25-10-1998 and concerned Deputy Station Superintendent gave report to the concerned C.R.P.F. by 9.25 a.m. accordingly and as per the inquest report, inquest over the dead body was conducted at 12.30 p.m. on the same day in the presence of mediators by a Sub Inspector and ticket bearing No.19172 along with cash of Rs.1,200/- was seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased. A.W.1 and A.W.2 deposed as to what happened prior to the incident and it is further deposed by A.W.2 that the deceased met them at Rajahmundry and left the place for the purpose of going to Bellampally. All these circumstances are to be taken into consideration in order to give final verdict in the matter. 10. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that in the F.I.R., no mention was made about the ticket and as per the inquest, the deceased fell down from a running train and received injuries and died whereas as per the application, the deceased changed another train at Khazipet and slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries and died and therefore, there are discrepancies in that context and further, it is important that no eye witness was examined and there was a possibility of planting the ticket after giving the first information report to the C.R.P.F and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision reported in Union Of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, Dhone, Kurnool District And Others AP[1] contending that the case falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. But there is no basis to say as to how the deceased fell down from the train. Further, by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others[2], even such passengers who travelled by trains holding valid tickets do come within the purview of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act and not the exceptions provided therein. Hence, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable. 12. A fact can be proved by circumstantial evidence. As already noted, the fact that immediately the F.I.R. was given and the inquest over the dead body was conducted and the material objects including the ticket were seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased are very important. It sufficiently proves that the deceased was holding valid ticket and while he was going by a train, he fell down and received injuries and died on the spot. Then, it is for the railways to place better evidence to disprove the applicants’ claim but the railways failed to place any evidence in that context for which an adverse inference can be drawn. 13. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the said claim. Further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrive at correct conclusions and therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization. __________________________​_____ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 25th February, 2011 AMD [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B.) [2] 2008 ACJ 1895