THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.176 of 2010 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 03-12-2009 passed in O.A.A.No.351 of 2005, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), was allowed directing the appellant/Railways to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Y.Sathibabu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an untoward incident. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is averred in the application that on 29-06-2004 the deceased purchased a II class train journey ticket from Samalkot to Annavaram and boarded the Train No.7016 Secunderabad – Bhubaneswar Visakha Express in II class general compartment. When the train was leaving from the platform at Samalkot Railway Station, due to sudden jerk of the train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down and the train dragged him to a distance of 10 sleepers, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. The respondent filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Act, and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and as per Para XV of the Inquest, the deceased was a Cancer and AIDS patient and hence, the deceased might have died due to his chronic disease and the body might have been kept on the track to claim huge amount from the respondent and that there was no untoward incident reported by the Guard of the train and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim application. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.1016 Secunderabad-Bhubaneshwar Visakha Express travelling from Samalkot to Annavaram on 29-06- 2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? During trial, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. The Tribunal, on evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, decided the issues in favour of the applicants and directed the respondent-Railways to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- within two months with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award, and thereafter at 9% per annum till realisation. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the respondent- Railways preferred this appeal. The point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the applicants failed to produce any evidence to show that the deceased was travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket and, therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that since the deceased was dragged to an extent of 10 sleepers, the deceased might have lost the ticket immediately after the accident and, therefore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger and after purchasing the ticket boarded the train and after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. 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 appellants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a passenger travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then applicants are entitled for compensation. If the respondent-railways want to resist the claim application, then it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the side of the track. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 3.30 a.m. The Police after coming to know about the accident, registered a case as in Ex.A-1 and after summoning the mediators, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.A-2-inquest report. Mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of falling from the running train and the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in a train accident. After completion of investigation, police filed a final report-Ex.A-6, which would clearly go to show that there is no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the untoward incident has been established beyond preponderance of probability. Coming to the point of bonafide passenger, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, but from the evidence, it is clear that the deceased after purchasing the ticket, might have boarded the train and due to sudden jerk, he accidentally fell down from the train and he was dragged to an extent of 10 sleepers and while dragging, losing of ticket by the deceased cannot be ruled out. So in the process of dragging, the ticket might have been lost or could not be noticed by the police during the course of inquest. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, had rightly granted compensation and the same does not need interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 20-08-2011 Prv