THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.M.A. No. 123 of 2006 Judgment: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, has filed this C.M.A., questioning the order dated 03.10.2005, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.A. No. 180 of 1998, awarding an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents-claimants towards compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a railway accident. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under appeal. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal is that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger traveling with a valid ticket and that even if it is assumed that he is a bona fide passenger, since he died in the railway accident on account of his own negligence, which would amount to self-inflicted injury, the respondents-claimants are not entitled to any compensation for the death of the deceased, but the Tribunal committed a grave error, in holding that the deceased is a bona fide passenger died in an untoward incident and awarding the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order under appeal. As can be seen from the order under appeal, it was the case of the appellants that, on the fateful day, the deceased was traveling by train from Vikarabad to go to Tandur, along with his son, who traveled up to Rukmapur, and that the deceased fell down from the moving train at Tandur Railway Station, when the train was about to halt, and died due to the injuries sustained in the said untoward incident. The son of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and he deposed about his traveling by the train along with his father, on the fateful day, by purchasing journey tickets, and his getting down at Rukmapur, while his father was to go to Tandur. His evidence remained unchallenged, in the absence of cross-examination by the appellant. The appellants have also produced some material before the Tribunal, showing that a message was issued by the Dy.SS/Tandur to GRP on 05.03.1995, reporting about the falling down of an aged person of 50 years from 330 Passenger and getting injured, that the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital on 05.03.1995 pursuant to the alleged railway accident, and that a report was filed by R.P.C.447 stating about falling of the deceased from the train and taking him to Government Hospital and Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad and his succumbing to injuries on the same night. This evidence shows that the accident did not occur on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased, but he died due to an accidental fall. Though the appellant contends that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, in view of amendment brought to Sections 123 and 124 of the Railways Act, the burden is on the railways to prove that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket and the nature of death falls within any of the exceptions to Section 124 of the Act. In the present case, the railways did not adduce any evidence to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Although the material produced by the claimants, being uncertified copies, cannot be admitted in evidence, but however, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence produced by the appellant railways, which has special means of knowledge as to whether any ticket was issued to the deceased or whether at any point, before or at the end of journey, he was checked and detected by staff of the railway without a ticket, pass or permission, so as to brand him as an unauthorized passenger, an inference based on the evidence of A.W.1 and the material produced by the appellants, can be safely drawn, as drawn by the Tribunal, that the deceased has traveled by the train on the fateful day as a bona fide passenger and has accidentally fallen down at Tandur Railway Station and died due to the injuries sustained in that untoward incident. Under Section 123 (2) (c) of the Act, accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers is also brought within the ambit of ‘untoward incident’ and thus the accidental falling of the deceased from the train in the present case would come within the meaning of untoward incident, for which the railways are liable to pay compensation to the claimants, as per Section 124-A of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Tribunal, holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and awarding compensation on account of his death to the claimants, treating the accident in which the deceased died, as an untoward incident. There is no merit in the C.M.A., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 27th January, 2011 IBL