THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1054 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.04.2006 passed in O.A.A.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 to 4 towards compensation for the death of one C.Mohan Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 18.09.1999 the deceased boarded the train No.691 in II Class general compartment at Guntakal Railway Station and was seen off by his brother one Nagabhushanam Reddy and while travelling the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train at KM No.263/6-7 between Krishnapuram and Cuddapah Railway Stations due to speed and jerks of the train and sustained severe multiple injuries due to which he died on the spot. Hence, the respondents who are the wife and children of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the incident is not an untoward incident as seen from the fact that the dead body was found near unmanned level crossing gate suggesting that the death could be due to negligent act of the deceased himself and hence denied the liability for compensation. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Mohan Reddy? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6011 Mumbai – Chennai express travelling from Guntakal to Cuddapah on 18.9.1999? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Krishnapuram and Cuddapah railway stations as alleged? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the wife and brother of the deceased were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants. But no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that he did not die in an untoward incident and that the two requirements, which are essential for grant of compensation are not established by the applicants they are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that there is no evidence from the side of the Railway Administration to show that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident and hence applicants are not entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10 It is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was noticed by a gangman of the railway department. The evidence of A.W.2 who is the brother of the deceased was very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a general compartment of the passenger train, and after considering the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation to the claimants. 11 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death, the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established then the applicants are entitled for compensation. The Railway Administration wants to resist the claim that there was no untoward incident happened and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, then burden is on the Railways to prove the same. 12 insofar as the death of the deceased is concerned, the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the gangman of the railway department by the side of the railway track. Basing on the information, the police registered a case and issued Ex.A.1 FIR and also conducted inquest. No doubt, during inquest the police did not find any ticket on the body of the deceased, but at the same time, they examined A.W.2 who is none other than the brother of the deceased. His evidence is that on 17.9.1999 A.W.2 along with the deceased went to the Railway station and the deceased purchased a ticket to travel from Guntakal to Cuddapah in Train No.6011. No doubt, A.W.2 is a close relative of the deceased, but at the same time the relationship by itself is not a ground to discard his evidence. If the evidence of A.W.2 is found to be acceptable and reliable it can be relied upon. There is nothing unusual for A.W.2 to accompany the deceased up to the railway station and at that time A.W.2 saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the train. Practically the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. As the evidence of A.W.2 is found to be acceptable, the Tribunal placed an implicit reliance on his evidence in arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 13 Ex.A.5 is the certificate issued by the police to show that the deceased had fallen from the train accidentally and no further action was proposed to be taken. Though a plea has been taken by the Railway Administration to the effect that the dead body of the deceased was found near an unmanned railway crossing suggesting that the death might be due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself, the same has not been substantiated with any other evidence. The appellant has not adduced any contra evidence to show that no untoward incident had taken place to the train No. 6011 on that particular date. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 14 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 06.09.2011 Kvsn