IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 888 of 2005 Between : The Union of India Rep.by its General Manager. …APPELLANT A N D Ambula Vijayalakshmi and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 888 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 11.03.2005 in O.A.A No.78 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants consequent upon the death of the deceased Ambula Balachakrapani. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 08.02.2000, one Ambula Balachakrapani, (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) travelled in the passenger Train No.29294 with general ticket from Srikalahasti to Tirupathi. In between Tiruchanuru-Tirupathi Railway Stations at KM No.90-3-4, due to an untoward incident, he fell from the running train and died on the spot. The key man of the Railways found the dead body by the side of the track and he reported the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Station, Tirupathi on 08.02.2000. Thereafter, police registered a case and conducted inquest. During the inquest the police also seized the ticket from the dead body of the deceased. 3. The Railways filed written statement stating that there was no report of whatsoever from the guard of the train about any person falling from the running train. But the injuries suffered by the deceased were self inflicted. The ticket allegedly seized by police was issued during the shift hours of 6 to 14 on 08.02.2010, that the arrival of the train was at 11.45 hours. Therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train No.29294 from Srikalahasti to Tirupathi, and therefore, it was not a case of an untoward incident, hence it was prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Ambula Balachakrapani? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train traveling on 08.02.2000 from Srikalahasti to Tirupathi? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accident fall from the train between Tiruchanuru and Tirupathi Railway station? 4. To what relief? 5. During the enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, AW-1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W. 1 was examined, and Exs.C1 to C3 were also marked. 6. The Railway Claims Tribunal upon consideration of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the deceased died while travelling in the passenger train as a bona fide passenger and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the points for consideration are:- 1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and; 2) Whether the deceased accidentally fell down from the train? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident or due to some negligence on the part of the Railways; and that police have not seized any ticket and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents/claimants contended that the key man of the Railways found the dead body of the deceased by the side of the track; that there was no scope or possibility for the deceased to jump from the moving train; that unless he had fallen from the train accidentally in an untoward incident, the dead body of the deceased would not have been found lying by the side of the track; and that after elaborate consideration of evidence on record the Railway Claims Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The death of the deceased in a railway accident is not seriously disputed. But the case of railways is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The police seized the ticket bearing No.29294 from the dead body of the deceased, which is a valid ticket to travel from Srikalahasti to Tirupathi. The said ticket was not shown to be a invalid ticket. Therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train from Srikalashasti to Tirupathi. No doubt the claimants have not examined any eye witnesses, to speak as to how the incident had taken place. When the claimants are unable to produce any eye witnesses, as to how the incident had taken place, in such circumstances the latin maxim res ipsa loquitur would come into play, which means the things speak for itself. 11. Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track. The dead body was first noticed by the key man of the Railways. He sent a message to the Deputy Superintendent of Station, Tirupathi at about 12:40 PM on 08.02.2000, stating that he had noticed a male dead body aged about 30 years at KM No.90/3-4. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. Similarly, when the police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators, the mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of falling from the running train after sustaining injuries. So these circumstances would clearly indicate that while the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger he must have fallen from the running train may be due to jerk of the train. It is not a case of committing suicide by the deceased by jumping from the moving train or that he sustained some injuries due to his negligence. It is stated in the written statement that the keyman informed about the incident at about 11:40 A.M. The keyman was examined as a witness, but he did not state before the Claims Tribunal that he noticed the dead body at about 11.40 AM on 08.02.2000. On the other hand, the evidence on record would clearly go to show that the keyman informed the Deputy Superintendent of Station, Tirupathi at about 12.40 Noon on 08.02.2000, about the finding of the dead body at KM No.90/3-4. As a matter of fact, the said fact has been specifically stated in the First Information Report and as well as Ex.A2. Therefore, before the arrival of the train the deceased might have purchased the ticket to go to Tirupathi to attend his personal work and due to some untoward incident he fell down from the train and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. 12. Therefore, from the aforesaid circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the deceased died in an untoward incident i.e., fall from the running train due to jerk of the train. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly granted compensation. The findings of the claims Tribunal are not shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J JUNE 09, 2010 YVL/MD