THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CMA No.578 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against an order made in O.A.A.No.216 of 1999 dated 29.10.2002 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereby the application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of husband of the first appellant, namely, Ramachandra Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) in the train accident that occurred on 07.06.1999 while he was travelling in Train No.8046 down Howrah Express from Mahaboobabad to Khammam, was dismissed. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is respondent in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. The applicants filed the above claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in the train accident. It was their case that while the deceased was travelling from Mahaboobabad to Khammam by 8046 down Howrah Express, accidentally slipped and fell down due to sudden jerks at Dornakal Railway Station at Km 461/10 and died. The Police of Dornakal registered a case in Crime No.26 of 1999 and investigated into. The respondent filed a written statement denying the averments made in the application and pleaded that the death of the deceased was not on account untoward incident. The enquiries revealed that one unknown male person aged about 35 years was found between Road No.3 and Platform No.2 of Dornakal Railway Station at 11.40 hours on 07.06.1999. The inquest report discloses that the deceased came under the wheels on account of standing at the door negligently and carelessly, which amounts to criminal act and that the injuries sustained by the deceased shall be presumed to be self-inflicted injuries, which comes under one of the exceptions to the untoward incident defined under Section 124-A of the Act. It was also denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of 8046 Howrah Express and the applicants are dependents of the deceased. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Darrama Ramachandra Reddy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.8046 Howrah Express, travelling from Mahaboobabad to Khammam on 7.6.99? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train as alleged? 4. To what relief?” On behalf of the applicants, the first applicant filed an affidavit as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. Against this evidence, the respondent examined one G.Venkata Rao, who was working as Commercial Supervisor at Mahaboobabad on the relevant date, as R.W.1. He sworn that ticket Nos.25655 to 25753 were issued from Mahaboobabad to Khammam on 07.06.1999 from 6.00 hrs to 15.00 hrs and that during his shift 375 passenger, Kazipet-Vijayawada passenger, 7406 Krishna Express and 8046 Howrah Express had passed. He further stated that 8046 Express has no stop at Dornakat Railway Station. Insofar as issue No.1 was concerned it was held that the applicants are the dependents of the deceased. Insofar as issue No.2 was concerned it was held that the deceased was travelling with ticket No.25747 from Mahaboobabad to Khammam in 8046 Express and during the inquest two tickets were found on the dead body of the deceased. One ticket was from Secunderabad to Mahaboobabad vide ticket No.24854 for Rs.57/- and another ticket from Mahaboobabad to Khammam bearing No.25747. No evidence was let in by the respondent to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, it was held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of 8046 down Howrah Express. Insofar as issue No.3 was concerned it was held that the very nature of the accident must be treated that it was not an accident, which can be said to be an untoward incident as defined under Section 124 of the Act. Therefore, the only question that requires to be looked into is that whether the deceased said to have died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? Though no evidence was let in to say that the accident was an untoward incident, one Abdul Qayyum, who said to have witnessed the accident, and who was examined by the police while conducting inquest, stated that the deceased while attempting to get down at Dornakal Railway Station slipped, fell down and died on the spot. The said constable Abdul Qayyum was not examined before the Tribunal. R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the Railways, did not say anything about the nature of the accident. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not an untoward incident as defined under Section 124-A of the Act. Once the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he was travelling in the train, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondent, the sworn statement made by A.W.1 that the deceased died due to accidental slip from the train cannot be disbelieved. R.W.1 spoke only about issuance of tickets on the date of accident against the trains, which passed through Dornakal Railway Station. Even the statement of R.W.1 that 8046 Express had no stop at Dornakal Railway Station was not based on any documentary evidence. In this regard, the Railways would have placed documentary evidence to show that there was no stop for this particular train at Dornakal Railway Station. But, no evidence has been let in except the oral statement of R.W.1. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondent, the unimpeachable statement made by A.W.1 and the facts and circumstances would show that this was an accident in which the deceased accidentally slipped, fell down from the train due to sudden jerks and died. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is an untoward incident of accidental fall from train as defined under Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed and the applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of appeal till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 23.07.2010 va