THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.158 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 17.10.2005, in O.A.A.No.175 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Yadala Chinna Rao (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and father of the deceased respectively. On the intervening night of 16/17.05.2002, while the deceased was travelling from Nellore to Kavali in train No.8690, Allepy- Bokaro Express, and when the train reached Kavali Railway Station, the deceased went near the door with a view to alight from the train but due to sudden jerk of the train, he slipped accidentally and fell down from the running train, as a result of which he was run over by the train and died. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways took the stand that no untoward incident had taken place at the railway station, when the train reached Kavali Railway Station at 03:07 hours and left at 03:09 hours and that the guard has not noticed any fall of a passenger from the train. Similarly, no person reported about any person falling from the train. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are sole dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether on 16/17.05.2002 the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs?” 5. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 6 . Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant - railways contended that the deceased had fallen down from the train due to his own negligence; that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. What is untoward incident is defined under Section 124A of the Act. When a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of that person. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger train. 10. It is the case of the respondents/applicants that the deceased while travelling from Nellore to Kavali by train No.8690, Allepy – Bokaro Express, and when he was about to get down from the train at Kavali Railway Station, due to sudden jerk of the train, he fell down accidentally, sustained injuries and later succumbed to injuries. The evidence of AW.2 would go to show that the deceased purchased the ticket at Nellore and boarded the express train. Police after registration of case conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and recovered the ticket, which is a valid ticket, to travel from Nellore to Kavali by express train on 17.05.2002, Ex.A4, from the pocket of the deceased. Therefore, from the evidence of AW.2 and the recitals in inquest report, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the express train. Once it is established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation in case of death resulting in an untoward incident. If the railways want to prove that the case of the respondents/applicants falls under any one of the clauses to proviso of Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the railways to establish the same. The railway administration did not adduce any evidence so as to infer that the deceased died due to his negligence. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation to the respondents. The Award of compensation is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 11, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.158 OF 2006 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Yadala Rama Devi and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.158 OF 2006 March 11, 2011