THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.739 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 25.03.2009 in O.A.A.No.60 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Thota Sreenu (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 06.03.2002, while the deceased was travelling by 474 passenger train and when he was near wash basin washing hands, due to over crowd near the compartment door, he fell down from the running train accidentally near Ammanabrolu railway station at about 18:30 hours. He was taken in the same train and got admitted in the Government Hospital, Ongole, where while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The railways filed the written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Sections 123 (c) (2) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”); that the applicants are put to strict proof to show that they are the dependants of the deceased; that as per the enquiries and inquest, the deceased was not holding journey ticket; that no article or money was found with the deceased; that in the absence of journey ticket, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger; that the Assistant Station Master, Ammanabrolu railway station reported that one male person aged about 35 years fallen down from 474 passenger near over bridge and the injured person was not having ticket and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident; that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket, and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that in issue No.1, respondent No.1/applicant No.1 i.e., T. Rama Devi is shown as AW.1 but in the appendix of evidence name of AW.1 is shown as M. Maheshwar Rao; that the father’s name of the deceased is noted as not known; that there is negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. 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 valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. Then onus of proof shifts to railways. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that the case of railways falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The First Information Report would clearly go to show that one male person aged about 35 years had fallen from 474 passenger train. The police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. So, from the evidence on record it is clear that an untoward incident has happened while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers. That aspect of the case is not in dispute. Even in the written statement filed by the railway administration, it is stated that the Assistant Station Master of the railway station reported that one male person aged about 35 years had fallen from 474 passenger train near over bridge. So, the untoward incident has been established beyond preponderance of probability. 11. With regard to the bona fide passenger, the initial burden is on the respondents/applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket. The respondents produced Ex.A4 – Original Ticket, which would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Furthermore, AW.2 is examined to speak that the deceased purchased a ticket. The evidence of AW.2 is clear that he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket. The evidence of AW.2 at the relevant point of time of purchasing the ticket by the deceased is not specifically denied or disputed by the railways. Once the evidence of AW.2 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the same. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of AW.2 and came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the father’s name of the deceased has not been mentioned but as seen from the original record, the father’s name of the deceased has been clearly mentioned. The name of AW.1 is noted as M. Maheshwar Rao instead of T. Rama Devi. It is only a mistake. AW.1’s name is T. Rama Devi, who is none other than respondent No.1/applicant No.1. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 22, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.739 OF 2009 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Thati Rama Devi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.739 OF 2009 September 22, 2011 MD