HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.374 OF 2010 ORDER: Respondents filed OAA No.275 of 2005 before the Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, on account of the death of P.Venkanna, husband of the 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of 4th respondent. It was pleaded that Venkanna was resident of Pocharam village and he went to Dornakal on 01-03-2002 for purchasing groceries. After purchase of the same, he boarded passenger Train No.354 at Dornakal after purchasing ticket upto Pocharam. According to them, Venkanna fell from the train on account of a sudden jerk between the Dornakal and Karepalli Stations and died. Reference was made to registration of Crime No.11 of 2003 by the Government Railway Police, Dornakal and the inquest conducted on 02-03-2002. It was pleaded that the death was on account of untoward incident and that they are entitled to pay compensation. 2. The application was opposed by the appellant. It was pleaded that the death was not at all on account of any untoward incident and that there is no evidence to prove the same. It was further pleaded that the death might have been caused on account of negligence on the part of the deceased himself. 3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation through its order dated 24-02-2010. The same is challenged in this appeal. 4. Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.L. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. There was no eyewitness to the accident. The dead body of the deceased was first noticed by the driver of a Goods Train on the same route. On receiving information from him, the Government Railway Police went to the spot, registered a crime and conducted inquest. A ticket from Dornakal to Pocharam was found in the shirt pocket of the deceased. Therefore, it prima facie established that the death was on account of a train accident. 6. The question as to whether the deceased died on account of any untoward incident or jerk in the passenger train, would be relevant. The respondent, naturally, did not have any evidence to prove that fact nor did the appellants adduce evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal had to decide the case based on the circumstances. A strong circumstance in favour of the respondent was that the dead body was noticed by the Railway Official themselves and a travelling ticket was found on the dead body. Therefore, an inference deserves to be drawn that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident. 7. The appellant, no doubt, made an effort to plead that there was negligence on the part of the deceased himself. It was pleaded that though the deceased was hit by a train, when he did not notice it while walking on the tracks due to his deafness, no evidence whatsoever was adduced to prove that. The fact, which has the effect, taking away the benefit of a provision in the Legislation is required to be proved beyond any doubt and the benefit cannot be denied on the basis of inference. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 23, 2010. KTL