HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4508 of 2003 27th August, 2010 Between :- Ch.Savaranna and another .. Petitioners And The Union of India, Rep. By the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad .. Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4508 of 2003 JUDGMENT:- The appellants are the parents of one Ch.Ramchander. On 22-6- 1998 Ramchander came to Gadwal from his native place Arepalli village to purchase some household articles and was returning by train. When he was attempting to board passenger train No.524, he slipped, fell down and was ran over by the train. While he was being shifted to Civil Hospital, he succumbed to injuries. It was stated that he was holding passenger ticket bearing No.93450. The Station Master, Gadwal, furnished the necessary information and the Government Railway Police registered F.I.R. Inquest also was conducted. The appellants filed O.A.A.No.184/1998 before the Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased died on account of a sudden jerk of the train, while he was traveling as a bona fide passenger. It was also pleaded that he was unmarried and had bright future before him. The respondents filed a written-statement. They did not dispute the occurrence of accident or death of the deceased in an untoward incident. However, they pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal held that the death of the deceased was on account of untoward incident, but dismissed the claim, on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, this appeal. Sri Pramod Goud, the learned Counsel for appellants, submits that the accident occurred right in the glance of the Railway Officials and the other passengers, and a ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased. He contends that there is no justification for the Tribunal in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand submits that though the deceased died on account of loss of grip, when the train was in motion, it ultimately emerged that he was not a bona fide passenger, and no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. The deceased was unmarried young man. The undisputed facts are that he boarded the passenger train at Gadwal station and fell down on account of loss of grip, when the train started. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the deceased was a victim of an untoward incident, and sustained injuries of falling from the train. While discussing the question as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal did take note of the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in UNION OF INDIA v. BABURAO KODEKAR & ANOTHER[1], which is to the effect that the burden to prove, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, vests on the Railwlays. The appellants categorically mentioned in their claim statement that a ticket bearing No.93450 was with the deceased. The only ground on which the Tribunal reused to take that into account is that no mention was made in the inquest, which is marked as Ex.A.2. The approach of the Tribunal is totally incorrect. Once the appellants have pleaded the existence of a ticket and filed the original thereof, it would have been verified with the records of the concerned Railway Station. Even while recognizing the principle that the burden is on the Railways, the Tribunal acted exactly in the opposite direction. The further discussion undertaken by it is almost in the form of placing absolute burden on the appellants. Even assuming that no ticket was found on the body of the deceased, an inference cannot be drawn to the effect that he was not a bona fide passenger. Firstly, a person who is involved in accident cannot be expected to take care of his ticket, at a time, his limbs and other parts of the body are being crushed under the wheels. Secondly, the definition of a bona fide passenger cannot be restricted to the one, who holds a train ticket. I n PARISA ANJALI AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECNDERABAD[2] this Court discussed various contingencies, that arise, when a passenger in a hurry, tried to board a train. It was held that even where a passenger holds an invalid ticket or does not possess any ticket at all, he does not cease to be a bona fide passenger, and much would depend upon the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. If one applies the principle underlying the said Judgment, the inescapable conclusion would be, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. No official of the Railways was examined to disprove the claim of the appellants herein, nor any records connected with the ticket, relied upon by the appellants, were placed before the Court. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal as to the status of the deceased, viz., that he was not a bona fide passenger cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the appeal is allowed and as a result, O.A.A.No.184/98 shall stand allowed. Out of the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants, 50% of it shall be required to be kept in a Fixed Deposit for a period of five years. The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J 27th August, 2010 smr [1] 2002 (4) ALD 843 [2] 2010 (1) ALT 709