IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.241 OF 2009 Date:11.08.2011 Between:- P.Lalitamba and others. ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 27.04.2001, in O.A.A.No.77 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of P.Gangachari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 14.03.1999 was dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence regarding the actual fall of the deceased from the train. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: On 14.03.1999, the deceased accompanied by his son-in-law went to the house of his eldest daughter at Eluru and on the same day, in order to go to Vijayawada, both of them went to Eluru Railway Station and purchased tickets from Eluru to Vijayawada and boarded train No.7488 Visakhapatnam-Tirupathi Tirumala Express in second class general compartment. On their way, the deceased went near the toilet and slipped there and accidentally fell down from the running train due to speed, jolt and jerks of the train in between Eluru and Vatulur Railway Stations at KM No.482/1-3 and died instantaneously. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and pleaded that the accidental fall from the train is false and baseless. The son-in-law of the deceased did not try to stop the train or reported the matter to the officials of the respondent Railways. The dead body was found by a Keyman-G.Venkateswar Rao at 7.30 hours on 15.03.1999 at KM 482/1-3 on the up line between Eluru and Vatlur and the message was given to the SI/GRP Eluru by Station Superintendent, Vatlur stating that the deceased has slipped from unknown train. The conclusion drawn in the inquest report by the police authority is not based on any eye witness statement but only on presumptions. The son-in-law of the deceased was planted as co- passenger and drawn the inquest report in connivance with the police in order to claim the compensation. In all probability, it is the case of a victim being slipped from a running train while crossing the track. No journey ticket was found with the dead body of the deceased and he was not a bona fide passenger and directed the applicants to prove the same. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants prove that they are the only dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the applicants further prove that the deceased P.Gangachari was a bona fide passenger in T.No.7488 on 14.03.1999? 3. Whether the applicants further prove that the deceased became victim of an untoward incident and died in the manner as narrated in para 6 of the claim petition? 4. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the claimants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 bona fi d e passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as A.W.2, who was travelling along with the deceased, categorically stated that the deceased purchased two tickets to travel in the train; that in the early hours of the day, his body was found by the side of the track, which was noticed by the Key man; and therefore, the applicants are entitled for compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that since the applicants failed to produce any ticket nor mentioned the ticket number in the inquest report, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to sustain the same. 11. Insofar as the untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the body of the deceased was found lying with several injuries by the side of the track. As a matter of fact, the Keyman found the dead body by the side of the track suggesting that the deceased had fallen from the running train. It is not a case of deceased committing suicide. The evidence of A.W.2 would also go to show that he was accompanying the deceased at the time of incident and no doubt, he did not actually see the deceased falling from the running train, but his evidence is clear that the deceased went to toilet and thereafter, he was missing. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that the deceased had fallen down accidentally from the train while he was going to toilet due to the sudden jerk in the train. The Post Mortem report and the Inquest Report would clearly go to show that the deceased sustained several injuries. It is not in dispute that the deceased was dragged by the train to a considerable extent. Hence, from the evidence on record, it can be said that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 11. With regard to bona fide passenger, the applicants did not produce the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Similarly, the police, while conducting inquest, did not find the ticket on the wearing apparel of the deceased, but the applicants are relying upon the evidence of A.W.2, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of incident. As a matter of fact, he is a person who sets the law into motion in reporting the incident to the Government Railway Police. Basing on his report, the police registered a case and investigated into. As a matter of fact, A.W.2 was also present at the time of inquest. He was examined by the police as an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, the presence of A.W.2 at the time of incident is established beyond preponderance of probability. His evidence is very clear that the deceased purchased two tickets (one for deceased and another for this witness) to travel in the train. The statement of A.W.2 remained unchallenged in the cross examination. Once a fact is stated by a witness and the same is not denied or disputed in the cross examination, it can be presumed that such a fact is admitted. In view of the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased purchased two tickets (one for himself and another to witness) to travel in a passenger train. The possibility of loosing the tickets while falling from the train cannot be ruled out. The deceased was dragged by the train to a considerable extent and in that process, the ticket might have been lost. Therefore, considering these aspects, it is a clear case where the deceased was travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). In view of the delay on the part of the appellants in coming to this Court, they are not entitled for any interest on the award amount. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. 12. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.04.2001, in O.A.A.No.77 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.241 OF 2009 Date:11.08.2011 AMD