THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.534 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: In this appeal, order dated 20-02-2006 in O.A.A.No.163 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is assailed. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, whereas, the said application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following death of one P.Naga Venkata Ratnam @ Rani (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in the railway accident in question. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : They happened to be the parents of the deceased person. On 02-12-2001, the deceased boarded train No.471 Vijayawada- Rayagada passenger in general compartment and at Godavari Railway station, during the intervening night of 1/2-12-2001, when the train was leaving the platform of the same railway station, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train and then she went underneath the train and the train ran over her and her legs were cut and she succumbed to the injuries. Further, she was holding a valid railway ticket to travel by the train and she was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the appeal was filed. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the claims of the applicants and further claiming that the deceased aged about 25 years suddenly entered the Godavari Railway Station platform and in spite of specific warning given by the Deputy Station Superintendent of the railway station, she tried to board running train and slipped and fell down between the train and the platform, which resulted in the mishap and thereafter the train was stopped and she was rendered first aid. Further, as the accident took place only due to her carelessness and negligence, it would not come within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Further, in any case she was not a bona fide passenger of the train and it would not be liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased P.Nagavenkata Ratnam @ Rani? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.471 Vijayawada – Rayagada passenger travelling from Godavari to Tuni in the early hours of 02-12-2001? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Godavari Railway Station and succumbed to injuries in the hospital? 4. To what relief? 6. For the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and for the respondent, the Guard of the train was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R-1 was marked. 7. The Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and further held the issues 2 to 4 against the applicants on the ground that no eye witness was examined with reference to the purchase of ticket by the deceased to travel by the train and hence, she was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further, the act of the deceased would amount to carelessness and negligence on her part which would not come within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railways Act by virtue of decision reported in UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD VS. K.BALAKRISHNAIAH AND OTHERS[1]. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the matter is to be examined taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case and she might not have purchased valid ticket to travel by the train as the train was about to move though she got intention to do so and when once that is proved, she must be held to be a bona fide passenger of the train and further, her act would not come within the purview of any of the exceptions covered by Section 124-A of the Railways Act to deny the applicants the payment of necessary compensation and the Tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence, the order is liable to be set aside and the application is to be allowed awarding the compensation as prayed for. 9. It is also his contention that the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such victims of railway accidents or their kith and kin and hence an elaborate interpretation is to be made with regards to the application of the relevant provisions of the Act and further the burden is upon the respondent to establish that she was not a bona fide passenger of the train by placing satisfactory evidence but the Railways failed to prove it for which adverse inference is to be drawn. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the following decisions reported in UNION OF INDIA VS. BABURAO KODDEKAR AND ANOTHER[2] and UNION OF INDIA VS. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR[3] and also judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.1069 of 2009. 10. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that if the deceased was holding any valid ticket to travel by the train, the same would have been traced at the time of inquest over the dead body conducted without delay and no objects of her were seized to come to a conclusion that she might have kept the ticket therein and therefore, it shall be presumed that she was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further when she tried to catch a running train, it is to be certainly held that she did so in a rash and negligent manner and as such, the injuries received by her shall be deemed to be self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It is also his contention that in the absence of any supporting evidence regarding the purchase of ticket, she should be deemed to be not a bona fide passenger and the Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 11. In UNION OF INDIA VS. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR (3 supra), it is observed by the Supreme Court with reference to relevant factors that the Act is a welfare legislation and thereby it should be the duty of the courts to give a broader interpretation the purpose of the legislation and it is also further observed therein that the statutory requirements cannot be ignored. 12. Further, in UNION OF INDIA VS. BABURAO KODDEKAR AND ANOTHER (2 supra) while dealing with the question of burden of proof it is observed relying upon decision in Raj Kumari and another V. Union of India (1993 ACJ 846) rendered by a Division of Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while dealing with Sections 82-A and 68 of the Railways Act, 1890 (old) : “Therefore, what is deducible from the above pronouncement of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is that the burden does not lie on the dependants of the deceased to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the burden is on the railway administration to prove that the deceased was a ticket less traveler or was not a bona fide passenger. We entirely agree with this view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. We may also say this view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is prior to the amendment brought to Section 123 of the Railways Act. Now, as a result of the amendment brought to Sections 123 and 124 of the Act, the burden is on the railways to prove that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket and the nature of death falls within any of the exceptions to Section 124 of the Act.” 13. A.W.1 deposed that there were no eye witnesses. The record shows that inquest over the dead body was conducted without delay but no ticket was seized then from the deceased. So, it rules out that she was holding any ticket in the absence of any supporting evidence. The applicants should have examined some witness who can ascertain the intention or conduct of the deceased to purchase necessary ticket. Assumption that she might have purchased ticket which was lost in the accident is not permissible under law. Unless there is supporting evidence such a conclusion cannot be drawn. No doubt as per various legal precedents the railways have to prove that such persons happened to be not bona fide passengers of trains. But, it does not mean that the respondent has to prove impossibility. When it is claimed that she was holding railway general ticket the same can be ascertained basing upon relevant objects seized in the accident and post mortem reports evidence of witnesses examined and documents marked on either side. But when general tickets are purchased, it is impossible to come to a conclusion on the basis of a relevant ticket issue register as to who purchased it. Law provides that a fact in issue must be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence and not by any assumptions without any basis. 14. Emphatically, the Supreme Court in 2008 (TLS) 46 300 clearly held that while giving liberal interpretation to the relevant provisions of the Act, the intendment of the statutory provisions should not be defeated. In the second decision also there is no observation to the effect that irrespective of whether such a victim was holding a valid ticket or not, he or his kith and kin should be paid necessary compensation. 15. Section 2 (29) of the Act provides, “passenger” means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 is as follows : “Untoward incident” means – (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity ; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station : or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. 16. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides : “When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident : Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to – (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him ; (b) self-inflicted injury ; (c) his own criminal act ; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.” 17. So, therefore in order to extend the benefits to the applicants there should be clear basis to assert that the deceased purchased a valid ticket to bring the case within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 18. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are not tenable and ultimately the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Tribunal by and large examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date.25-03-2011 Dsh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.534 OF 2006 Date: 25-03-2011 Between: P.Venkata Ramana and another. - - - Appellants/ Applicants. And The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. This Court made the following : [1] 2004(1) ALT 100 (F.B.) [2] 2002(4) ALD 843 (DB) [3] 2008(TLS) 46300