THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ Railways aggrieved by the order, dated 05.06.2006 in O.A.A. No.211 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Ramalingaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are wife and two children of the deceased, and on 14.2.2002, the deceased along with two others, while travelling by Narsapur Express from Guntur to Miryalaguda, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between Miryalaguda and Kondropol at KM 114/13-14 and died on the spot due to the injuries. 3. The railways resisted the claim stating that the dead body was found by the Keyman of Railways, and there is no eye- witness to the incident; that the two persons, alleged to be travelling with the deceased, did not report any fall to the railway officials, and so the fall does not attract the provisions of Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/railways contended that there is a discrepancy with regard to the place of untoward incident and if the accident had occurred after crossing Miryalaguda, the deceased was not having a valid ticket and therefore he was unauthorized passenger; that the recitals in the inquest report would go to show that the incident had happened after crossing Miryalaguda, and so, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket, and that he died in an untoward incident, and considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 8. 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. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel up to Miryalaguda. A.W.2 was examined to show that he was travelling along with the deceased at the time of the accident. His evidence is very clear that the deceased had fallen from the train accidentally before the train reached Miryalaguda. But, the learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that as seen from the First Information Report, the untoward incident had happened before reaching Miryalaguda, whereas the inquest report would disclose that the incident had happened after crossing Miryalaguda. Presence of A.W.2 along with the deceased is not denied or disputed. According to him, at Miryalaguda station, he did not find the deceased and therefore he went back on the track and found the dead body of the deceased by the side of the railway track. If the evidence of A.W.2 is to be accepted as correct, the dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the track before the train reached Miryalaguda. So, the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants would clearly go to show that the incident had happened before reaching Miryalaguda. There is no contra evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the untoward incident had happened after crossing Miryalaguda. No doubt, there is a recital in inquest report that the incident had happened beyond Miryalaguda. But, the investigating officer, who conducted the inquest, is not examined to show at what place they conducted the inquest. Practically, the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants remained unchallenged. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the railway administration to show that the untoward incident had happened after crossing Miryalaguda so as to infer that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 09.09.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2006 9.9.2011 Between Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Ganta Mallamma & others …Respondents