THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 807 of 2006 JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the order dated 26.10.2005 in O.A.A. No.209 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed. 2. The appellants/claimants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of a boy by name Chandraiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident. It is their case that the deceased and his brother-in-law B.Gangaram purchased a journey ticket to travel from Vikarabad to Zaheerabad and boarded train No.349 Kacheguda- Aurangabad passenger in general compartment on 28.10.1998, and that the deceased slipped accidentally and fell down at the outer signal of Marpalli railway station and sustained severe injuries and died while shifting to hospital. It is their case that the journey ticket has been misplaced by the co-passenger B.Gangaram. 3. The respondent/railways denied the case of the claimants that the deceased purchased a journey ticket and traveled in the said train and stated that their enquiries showed that at 7.30 hours on 28.10.1998, one person by name Lalaiah and another by name Gangaram of Marpalli village went to railway station and informed that a male boy by name Chandraiah, aged 12 years, was run over near Marpalli down outer signal, and that on the said date, only one journey ticket was issued at Vikarabad to Zaheerabad, and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues. 1)Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the said train ? 2) Whether the accident falls within the ambit of Sec.124A of the Railways Act ? 3) Whether the Applicants are the only dependents of the deceased ? 4) What amount of compensation, if any, the Applicants are entitled to ? 5. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 6. Heard both sides. 7. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 8. To substantiate the case of the claimants that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the claimants relied upon the recitals in inquest report which show that ticket bearing No.73931 was issued to travel from Vikarabad to Zaheerabad. That fact appears to be a false in view of the fact that the Chief Booking Clerk, who was examined as R.W.1, categorically stated that during the entire shift hours of 20.00 to 24.00 on 28.10.1998, only one ticket bearing No.73931 was issued to one passenger to travel from Vikarabad to Zaheerabad, and the said passenger had arrived at Vikarabad at 23.15 hours and departed at 23.25 hours. The testimony of R.W.1 remained unchallenged. There is no other reason to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, from the above circumstance, it is clear that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. It may be a fact that R.W.2, who is Assistant Station Master, Lingampalli, received information about lying of dead body of the deceased near outer signal of Marpalli railway station. But, that does not mean that the deceased died in an untoward incident. May be due to crossing of the railway track, the unfortunate incident might have been occurred. When the claimants failed to establish the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in passenger train, they are not entitled to any compensation. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. NO costs. --------------------- 23.3.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 807 of 2006 23.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 807 of 2006 23.3.2011 Between: T.Hakim Hussainappa & another …Appellants And The Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Respondent