IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.01-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.69 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Smt. D. Soudamani and two others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.69 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 15-09-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.103 of 2006, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Dr. Y.S. Naidu (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.103 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : They happened to be the wife and children of the deceased. The deceased was working as lecturer in the Govrnment College for Girls at Pakala and he used to shuttle between Tirupathi and Pakala by virtue of holding a quarterly season ticket for attending his duties. On 16-11-2005 the deceased went to Tirupathi railway station for the purpose of going to Pakala and tried to aboard in a reservation compartment of the train but accidentally slipped and fell down and received serious injuries and died on the spot. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train and his season ticket was seized. Hence the application was filed claiming the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the claim of the applicants and further claiming that the accident occurred because of carelessness and negligence of the deceased and there was no mistake on the part of the railways and he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and hence the application should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7697 Venkatadri Express, traveling from Tirupati RS to Pakala on 16-11-2005? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the respondent, nobody was examined but marked Ex.R-1 Divisional Railway Manager’s Report on mutual consent. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and allowed the application with a direction to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of actual payment apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- to the first applicant and Rs.1,00,000/- each to the second and third applicants with a further direction that the first applicant should be paid Rs.50,000/- and the second and third applicants should be paid Rs.25,000/- each immediately with a further direction to deposit the remaining balance amount in fixed deposit for a period of three years in State Bank of Hyderabad, Lalaguda Branch, Secunderabad, with liberty to draw periodical interests there from. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that in fact the deceased tried to aboard the reservation compartment without having requisite ticket and therefore he should not be treated as bona fide passenger of the train. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that hurriedly the deceased went to the railway station and as the train was about to move, he tried to enter into the reservation compartment but in the process, slipped and fell down. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train bearing No.7697 Venkatadri Express? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not? 10. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1. There is also no dispute that he was holding a valid season ticket to travel in the general compartment of the train from Tirupati to Pakala. Further, it is important that admittedly he happened to be a Lecturer of a Government College and as such he was a respectable person. It is also significant to note here that without getting into the reservation compartment the incident in question took place. Under those circumstances, it is something not acceptable that he tried to aboard the reservation compartment and traveled by it with a dishonest intention having not possessed a requisite ticket for that. In the facts and circumstances of the case it clearly appears that as the train was about to move and having no time he hurriedly tried to aboard the reservation compartment of the train actually noticing it or not noticing it to be a reservation compartment. So, it can not be said that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. 11. The facts and circumstance of the case amply prove that he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 01-03-2011. Dsh.