IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1092 of 2008. Date:19.09.2011 Between:- E.Peda Narasiah and another ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 01.02.2006, in O.A.A.Nos.62 of 2000 and 169 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Enumula Kumaraswamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 03.12.1999 was dismissed. 2. The appellants are applicants in O.A.A.No.62 of 2000. They filed the claim application stating that they are the parents and the applicant in O.A.A.No.169 of 2000 is the wife of the deceased. On 03.12.1999, while the deceased was returning to Warangal from Chimalapahad by train No.323 Badrachalam Road-Sirpurkagaznagar Passenger and when the train halted at Chimalapahad Railway Station, boarded the train and while getting into the compartment, due to sudden jerk and movement of the train, fell down accidentally, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no untoward incident as per the reports. Their enquiries revealed that a male person was found run over on the first loop line. As per the inquest report, the deceased person was suffering from some disability of touching the knee across while walking and having his bed roll on head with one hand, attempted to catch the moving train in a very careless and negligent manner, and therefore, the consequent fall occurred and that death is not an untoward incident and it is due to the careless and negligent act resulting in self inflicted injuries, indulged by the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Enumala Kumaraswamy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.323 Bhadrachalam Road-Sirpurkagaznagar Passenger travelling from Chimalapahad to Warangal on 03.12.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Chimalapahad Railway Station, while getting into the compartment? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the appellants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident while he was boarding the running train; that he was a bona fide passenger and the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the appellants. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the applicants failed to establish that they are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased; that no valid ticket was produced by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The untoward incident in which deceased died was proved beyond preponderance of probability as the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track. Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and later, the same was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 12. The other requirement is that the applicants must establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Admittedly, the police, while conducting inquest, did not find any ticket on the body of the deceased so as to infer that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But the applicants examined A.W.2 to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger having purchased a ticket for boarding the train. The Tribunal has not placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 for the reason that she is an interested witness. No doubt, the interestedness by itself is not a ground to discard evidence of a witness. That evidence has to be appreciated and evaluated like that of any other witness. After evaluating the evidence of interested witness, if it is found to be true, correct and reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence of such witness. In other words, when the evidence of a witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the same. As seen from the inquest report, A.W.2 was present at the time of inquest as one of the mediators. She is not an eye witness to speak about the deceased purchasing a ticket and boarding the train. If really she was an eye witness to the incident, she would have been examined as an eye witness during the course of inquest, but she was called by police to act as one of the inquest mediators during inquest. That shows that she was not an eye witness to the incident in question. Therefore, the Tribunal, after recording reasons, rightly has not placed any implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is eschewed for consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​__________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1092 of 2008. Date:19.09.2011 AMD