THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.786 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, passed in O.A.A.No.237 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation to the respondents herein. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants, before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as under: - The deceased-Shaik Rahmathulla boarded Train No.7055 Narsapur-Hyderabad Express, at Sattenapalli to go to Secunderabad, and while he was traveling in II Class General Compartment in the said train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, as a result, he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition filed by the applicants, who are the parents of the deceased, for grant of compensation. 4. To substantiate the case, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. 5. On considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 and granted compensation to the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- South Central Railway vehemently contended that there was no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen down from the running train as a result of untoward incident; that, further, even the applicants failed to produce any evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, travelling with a valid ticket on the date of the said untoward incident and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-applicants contended that Exs.A-3 and A-4 would clearly go to show that the deceased had fallen down from the running train as a result of untoward incident and died on the spot; that the evidence of A.W-2, who travelled along with the deceased on the relevant date of the incident, would go to show that he handed over the tickets to the Ticket Collector at the gate at Secunderabad station, as such, the deceased was a bona fide passenger and therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, provides for payment of compensation to passengers, in the event of their sustaining injuries, or their legal heirs, if they die, in an accident or untoward incident. 10. In the instant case, the untoward incident occurred on the intervening night of 9/10-11-1999, while the deceased was traveling in Train No.7055 Narasapur- Hyderabad Express. The dead body of the deceased was found between Nalgonda and Srirampura Railway stations. Basing on the information given by the railway authorities, the Railway Protection Force registered a case, investigated into the same and ultimately, filed the charge sheet. Ex.A-4 is the copy of the charge sheet, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the investigation revealed that the deceased was travelling in Narsapur- Hyderabad Express on the relevant date of the incident and had fallen from the running train. Therefore, the earliest investigation by police discloses that the deceased died as a result of falling down from the running train. It is not the case of railways that the deceased with a view to commit suicide jumped from the running train. In view of the fact that the untoward incident has taken place during mid-night, it cannot be expected that there would be any eye-witnesses to the same. The Latin maxim res ipsa loquitor which means “the things speak for itself” would apply to the facts of the case. The dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the railway track and that the investigation conducted by the Railway Protection Force coupled with the evidence of A.W-1 would go to show that the deceased was travelling in Train No.7055 on the date of the incident. 11. Coming to the second contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the applicants have not produced any valid ticket, the word ‘passenger’ is defined under sub-section (29) to Section 2 of the Act, which reads “a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.” 12. Admittedly, no ticket is produced by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. No doubt, A.W-2 deposed that he travelled along with the deceased on the date of the incident by purchasing the tickets and after getting down at Secunderabad Station, without any knowledge as to the fall of the deceased, he handed over the tickets to the Ticket Collector at the gate of the Secunderabad Railway Station. He did not make any enquiry about the deceased when he got down from the train. He simply went to his house. He did not lodge any complaint about the missing of the deceased. On seeing the newspaper two days after the incident, he stated that he was travelling in the train along with the deceased on the relevant date of the incident. If really, he was travelling in the train along with the deceased on the relevant date of the accident, certainly, he would have waited for the deceased to come, or at any rate, if the deceased was found missing, he would have made some efforts to search for the deceased or lodge a complaint with the Police. He did not do anything of that sort. Therefore, the presence of A.W-2 at the relevant time of the accident cannot be accepted because of his conduct. 13. Some times it so happens that a person goes to the railway station and when there is no scope or possibility to purchase the ticket owing to fact that the train is about to leave the station, he boards the train with an intention to pay the fare to the Travelling Ticket Examiner or any authority when he comes to check the tickets. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of this Court in Parisa Anjali V. Union of India[1], wherein at para No.11 it is observed as under:- “Even if there is any possibility for treating the ticket held by the deceased, as not valid one, he does not cease to be a passenger, in the context of the extension of benefits, under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act. What becomes material, in this regard, is the intention of the person, who was traveling in the train. It is only when the person boards the train with a clear intention to travel in it, without purchasing a ticket, that he can be treated as not a passenger. Take for instance a situation, where a person finds that the train in which he has to travel, is about to start, by the time he reached the station, and he does not have the time to purchase the ticket. Though he does not hold the ticket, he may still board the train with an intention to pay the fare to the TTE. Such a person can still be treated as bona fide passenger, both, when he boarded the train without ticket and after he pays the fare to the TTE.” 14. In the case on hand also, in the absence of contra evidence to the effect that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-railways that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger as he was not having a valid ticket cannot be accepted. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 22nd March 2010 dr [1] 2010 (1) ALT 709