THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.325 of 2008 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 19-12-2007 passed in O.A.A.No.135 of 2003, 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 124-A 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 A.Raghu Kishore Babu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an untoward incident. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is averred in the application that the deceased, who is the husband of 1st applicant, father of applicants 2 and 3 and the son of applicants 4 and 5, died on 25-01-2003 in an untoward incident. The deceased was employed as Security Guard at Singareni Collieries, Godavarikhani for the last several years. On 24-1-2003 with a view to come back to Ongole, the deceased started from Ramagundam Railway Station by purchasing a journey ticket from Ramagundam to Ongole bearing No.41574262 and boarded Train No.6094 Express. Thereafter, he got reservation in coach No.S2, Berth No.63 from the TTE in the train. When the train reached Platform No.3 of Ongole Railway Station at about 6.20 a.m. on 25-1-2003, the deceased came near the door along with his luggage to get down, but due to heavy rush, before the deceased could get down, the train suddenly started with a jerk as a result of which, he lost control and accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and the train ran over him, and the deceased died instantaneously. Hence, the claim application. The respondent Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made by the applicants and submitted that enquiries made by the Station Superintendent, Ongole Railway Station revealed that there was no such untoward incident on 25-1-03 as per the records. Further, enquiries from the Guard of the said train revealed that the train arrived Ongole at 5.57 hrs, and left the station at 5.59 hrs, after ensuring the starting signal and alerting the passengers by whistling. The Guard has not noticed any person falling from the train till the station limits passed and nobody brought to his notice that a person fell down from the train and, further, there was no alarm chain pulling in the train, and hence, the respondent Railways prayed to dismiss the claim. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, AW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent Railways, RW1 was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence available on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the said compensation within sixty days from the date of order, failing which, interest at 6% per annum will accrue from due date till payment. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the respondent Railways preferred this appeal. The learned Standing counsel for the appellant-Railways contended that no untoward incident as alleged by applicants had happened and, further, there was no evidence adduced by the applicants to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train accidentally and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein/applicants contended that the inquest report and post- mortem report would go to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and the Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there is no need to interfere with the same. Now it is to be seen whether the deceased died in an untoward incident and whether he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and whether the Tribunal was right in granting compensation to the applicants. 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 bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. 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 the death of the deceased is concerned, the case of the applicants is that when the deceased came near the door along with his luggage to get down from the train, there was heavy rush and the train suddenly started with a jerk due to which, he accidentally slipped and fell down resulting in his death. The appellant-Railway administration disputed about the taking place of such untoward incident. The police registered a case consequent upon the death of the deceased and after completion of investigation, they filed a final report which is marked as Ex.A7. The report would go to show that there was no foul play resulting the death of deceased. During the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, the inquest mediators also opined that the deceased while getting down on the platform at Ongole, he accidentally slipped and fell down, as a result, the train ran over him. The post-mortem report also reveals the said fact. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that there was an untoward incident and in that process, the deceased died. Coming to the question of whether the deceased is a bonafide passenger or not, the original ticket and excess fare ticket particulars mentioned in Column No.7 of the inquest report, marked as Ex.A2, are admissible under law and as such, the ticket numbers mentioned in the said inquest report cannot be said to be false or incorrect. Therefore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train and died in an untoward incident and accordingly, granted compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 20-08-2011 Prv