THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.887 OF 2003 DATED:09-06- 2010. Between 1.K.Suseela Rani and three others …Appellants-applicants And The Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. …Respondent-respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.887 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 31-10-2002, in O.A.A.No.99 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent to the death of Kammela Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was dismissed. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, may be sated as follows: The deceased along with his friends were returning to the house from Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem by purchasing express ticket No.16257 from Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem on 29-03-1999. But, after purchasing the ticket, one passenger train No.472, which was going from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada, reached Nidadavolu Railway station and the deceased boarded 472 passenger train and travelled up to Nawabpalem and the train stopped at that place for some time for the purpose of crossing. The deceased got down from the train and when the train was starting, he attempted to get into the compartment, but accidentally slipped and fell down, that the train ran over him as a result of which, his body was cut into two pieces and died on the spot. Therefore, the applicants filed the application claiming compensation. 3. The respondent filed counter denying the averments in the application. It is stated that the deceased alleged to have got down at Nawabpalem due to crossing and while getting into the moving train, he fell down as such, it amounts to his negligence and careless act and the injury sustained by him amounts to self inflicted injury, which is one of the exceptions to untoward incident as defined under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1.Whether the applicant is sole dependent of the deceased K.Satyanarayana? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.472 Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada passenger, traveling from Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Nawabpalem? 4. To what relief? 5. The first applicant herself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 and C1 to C3 were marked. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants filed the present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 8. The only question to be answered in this appeal is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in train No.472 passenger train from Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem. There cannot be any dispute that the burden is on the appellants to show that the deceased was the bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train and died in untoward accident. The incident alleged to have taken place at 3.10 A.M. In such circumstances, it is not expected from the appellants to examine eyewitnesses to the incident as to how the deceased had fallen from the train. To get over that fact, latter maxim res ipsa loquitur, would come into picture, which means, the things speak for itself. The passenger train was in the station for about half an hour. The deceased said to have purchased the ticket from Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem along with his two friends. There is no need for the deceased to purchase express ticket when he was traveling in the passenger train. The dead body of the deceased was lying at K.M.544/23-31 at Nawabpalem yard. There is no need for the deceased to get down at Nawabpalem, which is not his destination at all. The case of the appellants is that when the deceased got down from the train at Nawabpalem and while he was boarding the train, he fell down accidentally, sustained injuries and died on the spot. If this contention is to be accepted, certainly the deceased would have sustained some injuries on the body. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Similarly, the doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. As seen from the documents, the body was cut into two pieces at the waist and there were no other injuries. These circumstances would lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train while boarding. 9. In the evidence of A.W.1, it is clear that two of the deceased friends by name Lakshminarayana and Venkata Swamy were accompanying the deceased. They were not examined to show that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in the passenger train or that they got down at Nawabpalem or that while the deceased was boarding the train, he fell accidentally. If a person falls from a train while boarding, then other passengers would have raised hue and cry and they tried to stop the train by pulling the chain, which will attract the attention of the Guard and Station Master. There were no such acts, which would go to show about the deceased falling from the train when he was about to board the passenger train. Absolutely, there is no reason for the deceased to get down at Nawabpalem at the odd hours when the train halted for some other reason, as he was traveling in the train to go to Tadepalligudem. All these circumstances suggest that it is not a case of deceased falling from the train while boarding so as to bring the case within the meaning of untoward incident as defined under Section 124-A of the Act. Except the evidence of A.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased died in untoward incident traveling in a passenger train. The documents filed on behalf of the appellants also do not reveal about the deceased sustaining injuries while traveling in the passenger train in untoward incident. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died by traveling in the train as a passenger in untoward incident. The opinion of the inquest mediators is not evidence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain the apparent cause of the death. The circumstances that how the deceased died, in what manner and in what circumstances will not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 174 Cr.P.C. The cause of the death is cutting of the body of the deceased into two pieces. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the inquest mediators cannot be taken as evidence. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the evidence, rightly dismissed the application and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:09-06- 2010 Hsd