IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.915 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Vankadara Nagaraja and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.915 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 21.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.158 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of their son Vankadara Vinod (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 22.05.2001, while the deceased was travelling in train No.208 from Tirupati to Yerraguntla, due to sudden jerk of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident since he seems to have fallen down while alighting from the train at Yerraguntla Railway Station. However, the railways admitted that on 22.05.2001, when train No.208 arrived on platform No.1 of Yerraguntla Railway Station at 13:13 hours, a male person had fallen down from the train and was injured; that the injured person was removed from the track and information was given to the GRP and others for further proceedings. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Vankadara Vinod? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.208 Passenger travelling from Tirupathi to Yerraguntla on 22.05.01? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Yerraguntla Railway Station and succumbed to injuries in the hospital, while undergoing treatment? 4. To what relief?” 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined but no document was marked. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7 . Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased had fallen down from the train due to his own negligence; that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Act two requirements have to be satisfied viz., (1) there is an untoward incident in which the person received injuries or died and (2) the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled for compensation. 11. The evidence of AW.2 coupled with the evidence of Assistant Station Master, who is examined as RW.1, would clearly go to show that the deceased had fallen while alighting from the train and his body was cut into pieces. Police also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a result of falling from the running train. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the death of the deceased occurred in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the passenger train. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the moving train, the same cannot be accepted, unless the case of the railway administration falls under any of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 12. Coming to the second aspect whether the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel in the train, admittedly, when the body of the deceased was cut into several pieces, the possibility of not tracing the ticket at the time of conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased cannot be ruled out. Perhaps, that is the reason why the Tribunal also observed that when the body of the deceased was cut into several pieces, the ticket might have torn or lost and could not be noticed by the inquest mediators at the time of conducting inquest. Admittedly the deceased died in an untoward incident and it is proved that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to the compensation. The findings of the Tribunal are not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, 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 April 06, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.915 OF 2006 April 06, 2011