HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1234 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the South Central Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2008 in O.A.A.No.77 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Shaik Khader Basha (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), who is the husband, father and son of the applicants respectively, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of that order till the date of payment. 2. The facts relating to the case are that on 22.02.2003 the deceased purchased a ticket for journey to Nellore and boarded the Narayanadri Express train No.7424 at Secunderabad and when the train was passing near Bittragunta railway station in the early hours of 23.02.2003, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the running train on account of speed and jerks of the train and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant-Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the incident does not come within the provisions of Section 123 © (2) of the Railways Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7424 Narayanadri Express, traveling from Secunderabad to Nellore on 23.02.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief ? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. 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 traveling in the train with a valid ticket. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died on account of the untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train and that no railway ticket was produced to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding compensation. 10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents-applicants submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased had fallen down from the running train and sustained injuries and died. The appellant has also not seriously disputing about the death of the deceased in the manner as stated by applicants. Insofar as the railway ticket is concerned, the respondents-applicants have not produced any railway ticket or filed into Court to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But, at the same time, the evidence of AW2 would go to show that he and the deceased were working as Masons under one contractor and he accompanied the deceased to the railway station and that he saw the deceased purchasing railway ticket and boarded the train to go to Nellore to attend a marriage. There is no other evidence adduced by railways to rebut the statement of AW2 or that the deceased was traveling in the train without a valid ticket. Therefore, from the evidence of AW2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train in question. The possibility of missing the railway ticket during the course of incident cannot be ruled out. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondents- applicants are entitled for compensation and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. 12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is quite legal and justified and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 10-08-2011 Gsn.