IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1024 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D SK.Parveen and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1024 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.05.2006 in O.A.A.No.51 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of SK.Sikander @ Baba (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the said amount within sixty days from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 29.01.2001 at 7:00 AM the deceased while travelling by train No.7406 Secunderabad-Tirupathi Krishna Express, had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Aler Railway Station and died. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per Station records of Aler, some passengers have informed that a male unknown dead body was lying on down loop line, as such it cannot be said as an untoward incident; that as per inquest findings, the death was on account of attempting to catch ongoing train and not fall from the running train as alleged; that the act or omission amounts to criminal act which disentitles the applicants to claim compensation and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Sk.Sikandar @ Baba? 2. Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of train No.7406 Express travelling from Secunderabad to Jangaon on 29.01.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Aler Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the fall of the deceased attracts Section 123 ( c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and accordingly granted compensation. Challenging the same, Railways filed the present appeal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and so, the Tribunal ought not have to granted compensation and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased had purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers and that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident by falling accidentally from the running train. Even the railway administration is not seriously denying or disputing about the said fact. 12. With regard to the second aspect, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or not, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But, at the same time, they examined A.W.2, who categorically stated that the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of time of deceased purchasing the ticket is not specifically denied or disputed. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is found to be true, correct and trustworthy, there is no legal bar or impediment in placing an implicit reliance on his evidence. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2 as his evidence is very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train and the Tribunal rightly accepted his evidence. When the initial burden stands on the applicants is discharged, the burden shifts to the railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. No rebuttal evidence was adduced to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 10, 2011 YVL