IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.418 of 2009 Date:21.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Sunita Subhash Ambre and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.01.2009, in O.A.A.No.358 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A 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 Shri Subhash Shankar Ambre (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 15.07.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and minor children of the deceased; that on 15.07.2003, the deceased fell down from a running train accidentally, sustained injuries and died while he was travelling in Train No.1014 from Hossur to Lokamanya with ticket No.47663442. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that there is no cause of action for the applicants, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) or Section 124-A of the Act; that the application suffers with misjoinder of party, as according to the railway administration, the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad is not a necessary party because neither the booking station nor the place of accident nor destination comes under the control of the appellant Railways i.e., The General Mangaer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 4. A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the original ticket with which the deceased was travelling is not filed; death of the deceased is not established and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that a copy of journey-cum- reservation ticket has been filed, which shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him; that hence, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. 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. 10. Though it is contended by the appellant Railways that the deceased was not having a valid ticket, A.W.1 has stated in the affidavit that a journey-cum-reservation ticket bearing No.47663442 to travel from Hossur to Lokamanya Tilak station was found with the deceased by the Railway Police during inquest panchanama and that the police seized the original ticket at the time of inquest and gave a photo copy of the same. The ticket number, as furnished by the applicants, is not shown to be invalid, but because it is a photo copy, it was not marked. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 11. It is not in dispute that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.A-7, which would go to show that the deceased had fallen from a running train. Further, the evidence of R.W.1 would go to show that he was working as Station Master-II at Hindupur on 15.07.2003 from 11.00 hours to 21.30 hours and on that day, the Station Master, Chakralapalli sent a message with regard to the fall of a passenger from train No.1014 after the train left Hindupur station. So, from the evidence of R.W.1 and the recitals in Exs.R-1 and R-2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he fell down from a passenger train and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Hindupur for first aid and from there, shifted to K.R.Hospital, Bangalore and later, to Bhagawan Mahavir Jain Hospital, Bangalore but he succumbed to the injuries on 17.07.2003. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem, opined that the deceased died as a result of the multiple injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the applicants established the two requirements beyond preponderance of probability. Further, there is no contra evidence adduced by the railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that his death was not in an untoward incident. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to claim compensation. Considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 21st September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.418 of 2009 Date:21.09.2011 AMD