IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.165 OF 2011 Date:23.08.2011 Between:- D.Seshamma and others. ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 01.09.2009, in O.A.A.No.118 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of D.Varadharajulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 24.04.2001 was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his death was not on account of an untoward incident. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The appellants/applicants are the wife, father and children of the deceased. On 24.04.2001, the deceased having purchased a valid ticket bearing No.00379 to travel from Erpedu to Kavali, while boarding train No.473 Tirupathi-Kakinada Passenger, accidentally slipped and fell down and died on the spot at Yerpedu Railway Station. 3. The respondent-Railways resisted the claim in the written statement stating that as per the Inquest report, there was an eye witness, Ganjam Bhaskar, who saw the deceased buying a ticket for Bitragunta, and boarded train No.473 at 1.42 hours on 24.04.2001, and fell from the train, but this witness did not report about the accident. The Keyman found the body of the deceased at 7.30 a.m. and reported about the accident. The ticket number mentioned was for the journey from Erpedu to Kavali, whereas the witness stated that the deceased bought a ticket for Bitragunta and hence, the claim was not correct and the applicants were put to strict proof regarding their averments in the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? and 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. 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 fi d e passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that the deceased purchased a ticket and that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that there is no rebuttable evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the applicants. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the applicants produced a ticket – Ex.A-3, which was a journey ticket to travel from Erpedu to Kavali at 7.30 a.m. as first ticket, but according to the case of the applicants, he died earlier to 7a.m.; that therefore, the circumstances indicate that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and prays to sustain the impugned order. 11. Insofar as the untoward incident is concerned, the deceased was found run over by the train and died on platform No.1 at Erpedu station. The police, after coming to know about the incident, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and found that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the running train. The railway administration is not disputing about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 12. Now, it has to be seen whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. The applicants produced a ticket bearing No.00379, which is marked as Ex.A-3, to travel from Yerpedu to Kavali. It is in evidence that one Bhaskar saw the deceased buying a ticket to Bitragunta along with two other employees and boarding train No.473. But as per the investigation, Ex.A-3 would clearly go to show that the ticket bearing No.00379 could not have been issued prior to the incident because the previous ticket bearing No.00378 was the last ticket sold by the railway officials and had been on duty till 7 a.m. on 24.04.2001, whereas ticket bearing No.00379 was handed over as the opening number to the official, who took over from 7 a.m. to sell tickets. The incident is alleged to have been taken place prior to 7 a.m. because the police registered a case at 9.30 a.m. on 24.04.2001. The person who saw the deceased purchasing a ticket by name Bhaskar was not examined. If really he was the person present at the time of deceased purchasing the ticket, he would have lodged a report to the police or to the railway authorities about the deceased falling from the train. It is the specific case of the applicants that the incident has taken place at 1.42 a.m. on 24.04.2001 whereas the ticket, which is produced by the applicants, was admittedly issued by the railway authorities, which was sold after 7 a.m. on the same day. Therefore, after the incident, the ticket must have been purchased by the persons interested on behalf of the deceased and they might have produced before the police. So, when there is no evidence at all to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.165 OF 2011 Date:23.08.2011 AMD