THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 152 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is directed against an order made in OAA No. 334 of 1999 dated 23.10.2005 on the file of learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereudner the application filed by the respondents claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of husband of 1st applicant was allowed. Appellant is the South Central Railway and respondents are the applicants. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the OAA. The applicants are wife and father of one Eluru Sathaiah, who died in a railway accident on 9.12.1999 in the railway accident that occurred on 10.12.1999 at Sanathnagar Station while getting down from Train No.359 Vadi-Falaknuma Express. Initially, deceased received severe injuries and he was admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on the same day i.e. 10.12.1999 at 13.30 hours. Respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the allegations made against them and stating that as per the version of the driver and train guard of Train No.359 Vadi-Falaknuma Express, even before the train reached Sanathnagar and stopped, a passenger ventured to jump out of the train, as a result of which he sustained injuries and he was placed in the compartment for handing over to G.R.P. for medical treatment. The accident is beyond the purview of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Act to fasten any liability on the Railways. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Alluri Sudhakar? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 359 Wadi – Falaknuma passenger traveling from Shankarpalli to Sanathnagar on 10.12.99? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Sanathnagar Railway Station? 4. To what relief? In so far as issue No.1 was concerned, applicants being wife and father of the deceased, they were declared as dependents of the deceased. In so far as issue No.2 was concerned, it was held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the accident that occurred was an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and as such, the applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs and accordingly they were granted compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there was no valid ticket held by the deceased at the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have held that he was a bona fide passenger and the accident cannot be said to be an accident as defined under Section 124-A of the Act. The deceased jumped out of a running train on the off-side and not on the platform side and, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the Railways and as such, awarding any compensation amounts to misplaced sympathy. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondents-applicants. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact remains that the accident occurred is admitted. However, the nature of the accident is not admitted by the Railways. According to the Railways, the accident occurred when the deceased negligently jumped out from the train on off-side of the platform and he was not holding ticket at that time. In this regard, the Tribunal recorded its findings as under: “As per column No. 7 of Ex.A-2 inquest report, the deceased was not wearing shirt and since it was removed for treatment, it is to be inferred that the ticket was lost. Even from the version of RW-1 Train Guard, the deceased had fallen from coach No. 4682 while the train was on the move into platform and he tried to alight on the off side when the train was about to stop on the platform, the deceased had no necessity to alight from off side. In the absence of examining any evidence to prove that the deceased alighted the train at Shankarpalli from the off side, the defence is untenable. In a decision of A.P. High Court unreported (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 286/99 dated 25.8.04, it has been held that unless railways prove that the act or omission was a negligent one, its stand is not tenable. RW-1’s evidence is of no help at all. Therefore, it is held that the deceased as a bona fide passenger had a mishap so as to consider it an untoward incident”. From the above, it is clear that as per column No.7 under Ex.A-2 inquest report, the deceased was not wearing shirt and since it was removed for treatment and there is every possibility of loss of ticket since the deceased was lifted from the track and taken to compartment and from there, to Gandhi Hospital. Though the deceased was in the hospital, no such effort was made to find out as to the availability of ticket or any statement was recorded from the deceased or any other person. The Guard of the train had stated that when the train was about to stop on the platform, deceased had no necessity of alighting from the off-side. Except the self-serving statement of the Guard, there is no other evidence available to prove that the deceased alighted the train from off-side. Therefore, unless the Railways proves that the act or omission of the deceased was negligent one, its stand that the deceased jumped from running train on off-side cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, the Tribunal rightly held that PW-1’s evidence is of no help at all. Therefore, deceased was held to be a bona fide passenger and once it is held that he is a bona fide passenger, from the very nature of the accident it must be held that it is an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and, therefore, it attracted the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act and thus the respondents-applicants are entitled for compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that no case is made out by the appellant-Railways calling for interference of this Court into the Award passed by the Labour Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 26-8-2010. MVB.