THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.906 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, is directed against the order, dated 12.07.2005 in O.A.A.No.125 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 17.05.2000, applicant No.1 along with his wife G. Lakshmibai @ Sujatha (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’) and two children purchased a ticket bearing No.00312400 at Kacheguda to travel to Mahabubnagar and boarded in train bearing No.535, Secunderabad to Kurnool Town Passenger in general compartment. When the train halted at Mahabubnagar Town Railway Station, while the deceased was getting down from the train, due to sudden jerk and movement of the train, she accidentally slipped and fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The railways filed the written statement denying the averments made by applicant No.1 and stated that the fall of the deceased from the train was due to her utter carelessness and negligence, which amounted to self inflicted injury. They further stated that the journey ticket quoted by applicant No.1 was issued only up to Mahabubnagar Station, whereas the incident had taken place at Mahabubnagar Town Railway Station and therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. Hence, the respondent - railways prays to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Ghanathe Lakshmibai @ Sujata? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.535 Secunderabad - Kurnool Town passenger travelling from Kacheguda to Mahabubnagar on 17.05.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident or accidental fall from the train at Mahabubnagar Town railway station? 4. To what relief?” 5. To substantiate the case of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1 through his sworn affidavit and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-1/2 were got marked. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to the sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident; that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train in view of the fact that the deceased was holding a ticket to travel from Kachiguda to Mahabubnagar, but not to the Mahabubnagar Town Station; that the untoward incident is alleged to have taken place in between Mahabubnagar and Mahabubnagar Town Station and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel from Kachiguda to Mahabubnagar Town Station and therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly awarded compensation; that therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. It is not in dispute that on 17.05.2000, the deceased was travelling in train No.535 from Secunderabad to Mahabubnagar by boarding the train at Kachiguda. While the deceased was getting down from the train at Mahabubnagar Town Railway Station, there was a sudden jerk in the compartment, as a result, she fell down from the train near Mahabubnagar Town Railway Station, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. After registration of the case by the police, they held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of accidental fall from the train and issued Ex.A-2, Inquest Report. So, the death of the deceased is not seriously disputed as falling from the train. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, as she was not having a valid ticket to travel beyond Mahabubnagar. Police at the time of holding inquest on the dead body of the deceased seized a ticket bearing No.00312400, which was valid to travel from Kacheguda to Mahabubnagar in general compartment. The specific contention of the railways is that the deceased, her husband and two children are entitled to travel from kachiguda to Mahabubnagar only and not beyond that. The incident had taken place at Mahabubnagar Town Railway Station. Therefore, the burden is on the railways to show that the computerized ticket purchased by the deceased is not valid to travel beyond Mahabubnagar. RW.1, who is the guard of the train, has categorically stated that as per the seized ticket, the deceased was entitled to travel from Kachiguda to Mahabubnagar Town Station. The accident had taken place at the Mahabubngar Town Railway Station. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train cannot be accepted, in view of the admission made by RW.1 as well as by the computerized ticket purchased by the deceased. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 08, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.906 OF 2005 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND G. Ramesh Babu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.906 OF 2005 September 08, 2010