IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 242 OF 2008 Between : Smt Paidithalli …APPELLANT A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 242 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2001 in O.A.A.No.109 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of M.Achanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the applicant, and the respondent in the appeal is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed the claim application stating that on 24.02.1998, the deceased boarded train No.233 at Visakhapatnam in order to go Rayagada to attend a marriage. While he was travelling in the said train, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the train due to jerk and sudden movement of the train, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot at about 1:30 PM at Visakhapatnam Railway Station. The deceased was holding Second class free pass bearing No.822980 valid from 16.02.1998 to 15.06.1998 and the same was filed along with the claim application. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that there was no untoward incident at Visakhapatnam Railway Station on 24.02.1998; that according to panchanama, the deceased was boarding moving train No.233 passenger which tantamount to self inflicted injury; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that the applicant is not a dependent of the deceased; that due to negligence and misconduct on the part of the deceased, the incident had occurred and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant is dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent R.W.1 was examined, but no document was got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train, but death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident of accidental fall from a moving train. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the deceased was having a second class free pass bearing No.822980 valid from 16.02.1998 to 15.06.1998 to travel from Visakhapatnam to Rayagada; that the date of journey, time of journey and the destination is not noted on the pass; that the pass was not shown to be invalid; that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is established and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that even if the deceased was having a pass, the same was not shown to be valid, because the date of journey and time of journey have not been mentioned in the pass; that the Ticket Examiner had not signed on the pass to show that the deceased was authorized to travel in a train; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record rightly dismissed the claim application and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The deceased died in an untoward incident while boarding the train at Visakhapatnam Railway Station. On coming to know about the incident, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, the dead body was thoroughly searched, but no valid pass or ticket was found. The dead body was subjected to post- mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries all over the body. Therefore, the untoward incident is established beyond preponderance of probability. 12. With regard to the second aspect whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or pass or not, even assuming for a moment that the deceased was having a pass to travel from Visakhapatnam to Rayagada, as per Ex.A.6 issued by the Divisional Manager on 16.02.1998 valid upto 15.06.1998, the same was not certified by the Ticket Collector or any competent person to show that the deceased can travel from Visakhapatnam to Rayagada. There was a column on the back of Ex.A.6, which clearly suggests that the holder of pass has to sign or put his thumb impression. A Railway employee has to travel, there should be an endorsement to the effect that such employee has to sign or put thumb impression before the commencement of the journey. There are columns on Ex.A.6, which would go to show the name of the Station, date of journey and date of departure. Those columns were kept blank. It is specifically mentioned on the back of Ex.A.6 that the date must be inserted in ‘ink’ before commencement of journey in either direction and Ticket Collector and TTEs must see that this is complied with. Therefore, the condition precedent in terms of Ex.A6 is that before commencement of the journey, the date must be inserted in ‘ink’ in the column provided. Therefore, this condition has not been complied with. Unless, the column relevant in Ex.A.6 is filled up and signed by the competent authority, pass cannot be given effect to. The pass must not have been carried by the deceased to the railway Station on the date of incident. That is a reason why, when the police thoroughly searched the dead body of the deceased, they did not find any pass on the wearing apparels of the deceased. Subsequently, the applicant produced Ex.A.6 to show that the deceased is entitled to travel from Visakhapatnam to Rayagada by virtue of this pass. Unless the relevant columns are filled up and signed on the pass by concerned competent authority, the deceased cannot be said to be a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers under explanation to 124-A of the Act. That is the reason why the Tribunal had not placed any reliance on Ex.A.6 and came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Though the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is proved beyond preponderance of probability, he was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or pass. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 YVL