IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.337 of 2006 Between: Gaddam Shivaiah and another ..... APPELLANTS And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.337 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 18.01.2006 in O.A.A.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants herein claiming compensation for the death of the deceased who died in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The application is filed under Sec.16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act r/w.Sec.124-A and 125 of Railways Act claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs by the parents of the deceased one Gaddam Kumar in an untoward incident of accidental fall. It is further submitted that the deceased while traveling with his father, Applicant No.1, on 07.08.2000 from Dabirpura to Falaknuma with journey tickets in 621 passenger and while so traveling the deceased while getting down with milk cans at Huppuguda Railway Stateion the said train started with a jerk and suddenly moved by which the deceased fell down at Huppuguda Railway station and died on the spot. 4. Respondent railways have refuted the case of the applicants and have stated that if the tickets were taken to travel to Falaknuma, the reason for getting down at Huppuguda with milk cans has not been stated and further that as per the information of the driver of passenger train, one passenger got down from the running train at Huppuguda and fell down between platform and the train and died. They have stated that the passengers are prohibited from stepping down from the moving train and any passenger so doing is liable for prosecution under Railways Act. Further the fall of the deceased is due to getting down from the running train, the incident is caused by the criminal act of the deceased and therefore the case does not attract the provisions of Sec.124A. Hence, they are not liable for payment of compensation. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Gaddam Kumar? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.621 passenger, traveling from Dabeerpura to Falaknuma on 07.08.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidents fall from the train while getting down at Huppuguda railway station as alleged? 4. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW 1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the passenger was examined as RW 1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the deceased was bona fide passenger and he died in untoward incident; that the Tribunal on erroneous grounds dismissed the claim, and therefore, he prays to grant compensation while setting aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Railways contended that as the applicants failed to establish that the deceased died in untoward incident; that he was not a bona fide passenger; that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the applicants are entitled for compensation, unless it is established by the railways administration that the case of the applicants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Sec.124-A of the Act. 10. AW 1 is the father, he was traveling along with the deceased who is no other than his son in the passenger train on the fateful day of the incident. His evidence is very clear that while the deceased was getting down from the train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down between platform and the train and sustained injuries and died. RW 1 who is the driver of the passenger train stated that one person had fallen from the train and died. Basing on the report given from the Key man, the police registered the case and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased had fallen from the passenger train and sustained injuries and died subsequently. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has clearly stated that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him, and therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is established beyond the preponderance of probabilities. 11. Coming to the next aspect as to whether the deceased was bona fide passenger or not, AW 1 produced two tickets, one is for him and another is for his son deceased and they are Ex.A6 and A7 and there is no dispute that they are incorrect and invalid tickets. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the Railways administration so as to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In view of Exs.A6 and A7 tickets produced by AW 1, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket, and hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The appellants/claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only), to be shared equally among them, payable by the respondent-Railways within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 08.09.2011 Dsr