THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.965 of 2009 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 09-07-2009 passed in O.A.A.No.180 of 2004, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), was allowed directing the appellant/Railways to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Ketineni Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an untoward incident. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is averred in the application that on 16.07.2004 the deceased and his colleague one V.Satyanarayana, purchased a ticket bearing No.26121904 for the journey from Kavali to Khammam in train No.2759 Charminar Express. Because of the rush, they got into the compartment from different entrances. When the train started with a jerk, before the deceased could enter the train, he lost his balance and fell down on the platform, sustained injuries and died. Hence, the claim application. The respondent resisted the claim mainly stating that the ticket had not been filed, that in the Inquest Report, it has not mentioned that the deceased was traveling with another person, that the night patrolman had found the dead body on the down line of the track of Kavali Yard, hence the deceased could not have fallen while catching a train at Kavali Station and that the death of the deceased was on account of self-inflicted injuries for which the respondent is not liable to make any payment. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the Applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide 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? During trial, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1, co-passenger was examined as AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, decided the issues in favour of the applicants and directed the respondent-Railways to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- within two months from the date of order, failing which, the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the respondent-Railways preferred this appeal. The point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the applicants failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the appellants 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 passenger travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then applicants are entitled for compensation. If the respondent-railways want to resist the claim application, then it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Insofar as the untoward incident is concerned, the incident took place during mid night and immediately the death of the deceased was not being informed to the relatives. The body was kept in the Railway Hospital and on the next day morning, the police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. In the inquest report, the inquest mediators opined that the deceased while getting down, accidentally fallen from the train, sustained injuries and died. The police also filed a final report stating that there was no foul play in the incident. Therefore, the deceased died in an untoward incident. With regard to bonafide passenger, AW.2, who was travelling along with the deceased, categorically stated that he purchased the ticket for himself and the deceased and he boarded the train through another entrance whereas the deceased boarded the train by another entrance and, therefore, he must not have noticed the deceased falling from the train. Practically, the evidence of AW.2 remained unchallenged. From the evidence of AW.2, it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. As a matter of fact, a ticket was also produced by AW.2 before the Tribunal, but the same was not marked, as it was copy of ticket. The Tribunal having considered the evidence of AW.2 came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Once the initial burden placed on the applicants stands discharged. Then, the burden shifts to the railways to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No evidence was let in by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly granted compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 20-08-2011 Prv