Miscellaneous Appeal No. 275 of 2008 · High Court

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the applicants, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 10-03-2008 in O.A.A No.157 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of B.Venkataiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was dismissed.

1st applicant is the wife and applicants 2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased. It is stated in the application that on 22-04-2003 the deceased went to one of his relatives house at Shankarpalli, stayed there for the night and on 23-04-2003 went to Shankarpalli Railway station, purchased a ticket from Shankarpalli to Hyderabad and boarded train No. 350 Aurangabad-Hyderabad passenger in general compartment for settling some telephone bill arrears at Hyderabad. While the train was leaving Shankarpalli railway station, he slipped and fell down from the running train as he was standing at the door due to heavy rush of passengers and jerks of the train on platform No.1. He went under the wheels got dragged to some distance, both hands got cut and succumbed to injuries on the spot. It is stated that the journey ticket was lost in the accident. Hence, the claim application.

The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was available with him and that the death was not due to accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the application.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial.

Whether the applicants are dependents 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?

During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked. On behalf of Railways, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. C.W.1 was examined and Ex.C1 was marked through Court.

The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants.

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

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident, that while falling from the train, possibility of deceased loosing the ticket cannot be ruled out and hence, he prays to grant compensation to the applicants.

On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that since the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application and the said order needs no interference by this Court.

For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.

The death of the deceased is not seriously disputed. The body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track. The Assistant Station Master on receipt of message from the guard, went there and found a person who was unable to speak and unconscious. Then the injured was lifted to platform. There is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train. The medical evidence does not show that the injuries sustained by the deceased may be due to fall from the running train. Therefore, untoward incident has not been established.

Insofar as aspect of bona fide passenger is concerned, the applicants have not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train with a valid ticket. R.W.2 rushed to the scene of occurrence on coming to know through walkie talkie about falling of a male person under the train. The guard also searched the pocket of the deceased, but no ticket was found. A.W.2 was examined to show that he accompanied the deceased to Railway Station and dropped the deceased at the station. He did not say that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a passenger train. On the other hand, he admitted that he does not know whether the deceased had purchased the ticket or not. If really, the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train with a valid ticket, police would have definitely noticed the ticket on the wearing apparel of the deceased during the course of inquest, but police did not find any ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and the said order needs no interference by this Court.

Accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal DATED: 15-09-2011 Hsd ________________ K.C. BHANU, J