Miscellaneous Appeal No. 985 of 2006 · High Court

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-railways challenging the order dated 18.08.2006 in O.A.A. No.83 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the accidental death of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an untoward incident, was allowed.

The claimants’ version is that the deceased went to Guntur where he met two of his village friends and all the three of them purchased journey tickets from Guntur to Padakurapadu and boarded train No.421 Guntur-Sattenapalli passenger in general compartment on 09.03.2000 and while travelling, the deceased slipped and

accidentally fell from the train at KM22/11-12 between Sripuram and Bandarupalli Railway stations due to hit by the door at about 20-45 hours in which, he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application.

The appellant-railways denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that there was no complaint to the Railway authorities about any untoward incident alleged to have occurred on

09.03.2000; that the alleged co-passengers of the deceased have been introduced to prove a false case; that in the absence of the tickets, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that the circumstances and the enquires show that the incident has occurred due to the criminal acts of the deceased resulting in self inflicting injuries and such acts disentitle the claimants from claiming any compensation and hence, it prays to dismiss the application.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Shaik Mahaboob Subhani? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.421 Guntur-Sattenapalli Passenger travelling from Guntur to Pedakurapadu on 09.03.2000? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental train between Siripuram and Bandarupalli Railway Stations, due to hit by the door of the compartment? 4) To what relief?

Before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants AWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the railways none were examined.

The Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased who was a bona fide passenger met with an untoward incident for which the claimants are entitled to compensation.

Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal?

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-railways vehemently contended that since the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the question of granting compensation does not arise, as no ticket was found at the time of inquest and this aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal and hence, he prays to set aside the order.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contended that AW2 is the person who saw the deceased at the time of purchasing the ticket and informed the incident to the relatives and that the Tribunal has rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of AW2 and granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants’ falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under Section 124-A of the Act.

The death of the deceased is not in dispute. Basing on the information given by the Key man, the police registered a case. As per the Inquest Report, the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the train. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. Doctor opined that deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him due to fall from the train. So, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident has been established.

Coming to the next question, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, no doubt, at the time of inquest, police did not find ticket, but to prove that the deceased purchased ticket, AW2 was examined. He categorically stated that he had seen the deceased purchasing a ticket at the railway station and falling of the deceased accidentally from the passenger train. There is no other reason for AW2 to speak false. Nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony with regard to the deceased purchasing the ticket to travel in the passenger train. That is the reason why the Tribunal has rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of AW2. If the evidence of AW2 is to be accepted, then it is clear that the deceased was bona fide passenger. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.