THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.706 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 16.03.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.180 of 2003, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, was dismissed. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case in brief are: On the intervening night of 22/23.07.2002, one Ishtalingappa (hereinafter, the deceased) is stated to have died in an untoward incident at Gulbarga while travelling in train No.6012 from Madras to Gulbarga. Two journey tickets i.e. one from Chennai to Mantralayam- ticket bearing No.AA/23481738 and the second from Mantralayam to Gulbarga-ticket bearing No.60/247, were seized by Government Railway Police, Wadi. 4. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that as per the station records, no such untoward incident had occurred and the ticket details also did not tally with their records. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Were the applicants dependents of the deceased? 2) Was the deceased a bona fide passenger? 3) Did he die of an untoward incident of fall from a train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, AW1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. SI/GRP, Wadi was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 was marked. 7. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the death of the deceased is not in dispute and that the deceased had taken ticket from Chennai to Mantralayam and for further travelling from Mantralayam to Gulbarga, the deceased paid an amount of Rs.58/- to the Travelling Ticket Inspector and obtained TC receipt No.601247 and the number of the said receipt has been clearly incorporated in the inquest report and, therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation as prayed for. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways vehemently contended that the ticket number as furnished in the inquest report is not tallying with the records and the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, has got no territorial jurisdiction and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there was an untoward incident that had happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the respondent-railways want to resist the claim application, then it has to prove that no such untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the railway track and the same was noticed by the employees of the Railways and informed about the same to the next superior. Police after coming to know about the incident, registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, police found a ticket receipt No.601247 for Rs.58/- to travel from Mantralayam to Gulbarga. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The objective finding of finding a ticket receipt bearing No.601247 for Rs.58/- issued by the Ticket Collector can be accepted as substantive piece of evidence. No doubt, the railway administration examined CW.1 to show that subject series of EPT No.601247 are not tallying with the Station records. As seen from the recitals in the inquest report, it is clear that the ticket was not purchased from any particular station, but it was issued to the passenger by ticket examiner while he was travelling and that is the reason why the inquest report would clearly go to show that the Ticket Collector issued receipt No.601247 for Rs.58/- and the receipt number is clearly mentioned. The said receipt does not tally with the station records as it is issued in the train during the journey by the Ticket Travelling Examiner. 12. It is also not in dispute that the deceased purchased ticket bearing No.AA/23481738 to travel from Chennai to Mantralayam. The possibility of the deceased continuing his journey beyond Mantralayam cannot be ruled out and that is the reason why he is said to have obtained a receipt after paying necessary charges to the ticket collector, for travelling further. That is the reason why the police noticed a ticket receipt on the dead body of the deceased during the course of inquest. It is not shown that the ticket receipt noticed by the police during the course of investigation is an invalid or incorrect ticket receipt. The Ticket Collector, who was travelling by the said train from Mantralayam to Gulbarga on the date of incident is the best person to speak about issuance or non-issuance of the ticket receipt in question. If the railway administration wants to disprove the receipt, it ought to have examined the Ticket Collector. But, the railway administration purposefully withheld the evidence of the ticket collector. They failed to examine the Ticket Collector, who said to have issued the ticket receipt No.601247 from Mantralayam to Gulbarga. If a party withholds important evidence purposefully, an adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of such witness under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the Court may presume that evidence which would be and is not produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The illustration refers to the presumption raised from withholding of evidence and from suppression of evidence. If a man wrongfully withholds evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage consistent with the facts admitted or proved will be adopted. When there is no explanation for not examining the said person, certainly it is a case where adverse inference has to be drawn. Therefore, the deceased continued his journey from Mantralayam to Gulbarga and obtained a proper ticket receipt by paying necessary amount. The Tribunal did not consider this important aspect of the case. Since the place of purchase of ticket during his travel in the train being Mantralayam, the same is covered by the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad and, hence, Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad has got jurisdiction to consider the application filed by the applicants. 13. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the applicants are granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) and it carries 9% simple interest from the date of Award till the date of realisation. Out of the said amount, 1st applicant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- and applicants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.60,000/- each. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 23-09-2011 Prv