IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 243 OF 2008 Between : Smt S.Varalamma and others. …APPELLANTS A N D Union of India. …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 243 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.01.2001 in O.A.A.No.87 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Sigireddy Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the applicants, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, 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 O.A.A. stating that on 01.01.1998, the deceased along with his daughter boarded train No.1020 Konark Express in II Class General Compartment in order to go from Visakhapatnam to Eluru. When the said passenger train passed Samalkot, at about 2:30 hours on 02.01.1998, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the death of the deceased was not on account of fall from train No.1020 Konark Express; that Keyman of Samalkot found the dead body of a male person lying at KM 627/1 near Samalkot; that the death of the deceased does not fall under the purview of Section 124 A of the Railways Act; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the railways are not responsible for the death of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 and A2 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger with a valid ticket; that he died in an untoward incident; that there was a perfunctory investigation done by police in not sending the dead body to post mortem examination, for which the applicants need not suffer and hence, he prays to remand the matter to the Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the death of the deceased was not established by the applicants; that the applicants also failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train as a bona fide passenger; that therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal. 11. 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 the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it has to be proved by the applicants that the deceased died in an untoward incident as a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Admittedly, there are no witnesses to the incident. Though police registered a case under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, they failed to send the dead body to the Doctor for conducting autopsy. The purpose of holding inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is to know the apparent cause of the death. Therefore, if police sent the dead body to post mortem examination, the Doctor would have opined as to the actual cause of death of the deceased. That report is lacking. It is not known under what circumstances the actual cause of death of the deceased happened. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident has not been established beyond preponderance of probability by the applicants. No doubt, the applicants need not suffer for the lapses committed by police in not sending the dead body to the Doctor for conducting the post mortem examination, but at the same time, the death in an untoward incident has to be established by the applicants for claiming compensation. 13. With regard to second aspect i.e., whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket or not, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. Police did not find any ticket on the body of the deceased to infer that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Similarly, A.W.2, the daughter of the deceased who travelled along with the deceased did not produce any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Similarly A.W.2 has not given the details of the ticket i.e., number, value of the ticket and from which place to place she purchased the ticket. Therefore, it would clearly go to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation as they failed to prove the ingredients necessary under Section 124A of the Act. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 YVL