IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.70 OF 2007 Date:11.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Saritha and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 18.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.276 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A 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 Sanjay Galiwar (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 26.03.2001, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and minor children of the deceased; that on 26.03.2001, while the deceased was travelling by train No.335 Dn., along with his brother Balram and another to go to Khazipet by purchasing tickets, the untoward incident took place at Chandrapur. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement and stated that as per inquiry, three tickets bearing Nos.20463, 20464 and 20465 were issued on 26.03.2001 from Babupeth to Khazipet for train No.335 Nagpur-Khazipet passenger. The said train reached Makudi Railway Station at 5.40 hours and left at 6.10 hours. Train No.2804 was given precedence at 5.55 hours, which had no schedule halt there, and when the same was passing through Makudi Railway Station, the deceased had trespassed the track, which resulted his run over by that train and hence, the incident is not an untoward incident to claim compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Sanjay Galiwar? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Nagpur-Khazipet passenger train travelling from Babupeth to Khazipet on 26.03.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Makudi Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and that at the time of the incident, while the deceased was crossing the railway track, he was hit by another train, and in such circumstances, the dependents of deceased are not entitled to any compensation and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the applicants produced the tickets, which would clearly go to show that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was crossing the railway track at the relevant point of time of incident; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. His dead body was found by the side of the track, which was noticed by the driver of the train. The police conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that those injuries could be possible in a railway accident. Ex.A-3 is the inquest report wherein the police noted down the three journey tickets. A.W.2 is an eye witness to the incident. He was also travelling along with the deceased and another. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of A.W.2 to discredit his testimony. If the evidence of A.W.2 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in placing reliance on his testimony. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant time of incident is established beyond preponderance of probability. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.2 coupled with Ex.A-3, it is clear that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that while the deceased was crossing the track, he was hit by train No.2804, cannot be accepted because there is no evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was actually crossing the track at the time of incident. The evidence of R.W.1 is based upon the information given by the driver of the train but the driver of the train is not examined. Therefore, the evidence of R.W.1 is in the nature of hear say, which is not admissible under law in the absence of examination of the driver of another train. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of sudden crossing of the railway track by the deceased while another train was coming, cannot be accepted. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.70 OF 2007 Date:11.10.2011 AMD