JUDGMENT
V. Eshwaraiah, J.
1. The South Central Railway, Secunderabad, represented by its General Manager filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 113 of 1995 dated 22-7-1996 in allowing the application of the respondent herein claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs payable by the appellant herein for the death of her husband in the railway accident.
2. The respondent herein filed the above application claiming compensation from the appellant herein for the death of her husband one Srinivasa Sastri alleging that her husband fell down accidentally from Train No. 7007 Godavari Express at Lallaguda Workshop near Secunderabad Station and died and that the Ticket carried by the deceased was lost.
3. In support of her claim, the respondent-applicant herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined one of her relatives as P.W.2 and got marked the FIR as Ex.A-2, the Inquest Report as Ex.A-3, postmortem report as Ex.A-4 and the legal heir certificate issued by the M.R.O. as Ex.A-6. The appellant-Railway authorities did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the Claims Tribunal.
4. In her evidence as P.W.1, the respondent-applicant stated that her deceased husband was working Assistant Engineer and on the date of occurrence, he had gone to Warangal on some personal work and while returning from Warangal, he met with the accident near Lallaguda Workshop.
5. In the Inquest report it is mentioned that the train stopped twice near Lallaguda workshop before reaching Secunderabad and the husband of the respondent-applicant met with the accident while getting down from the train near Lallaguda workshop.
6. The contention of the Railways before the Tribunal was that the deceased fell down while trying to alight from the moving train and therefore, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the train. The said contention of the Railways was rejected by the Tribunal stating that the inquest report and the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent-applicant categorically show that the train stopped twice near Lallaguda Workshop and it is quite possible that the deceased decided to get down at Lallaguda workshop since the train stopped there and perhaps that spot might have been more convenient for him to go home instead of from Secunderabad station. The Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence felt that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and fell down while trying to get down from the train and hence the respondent-applicant is entitled for compensation.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submits that the deceased was a ticketless passenger and no material is placed before this Court or the Tribunal by the respondent-applicant in proof of her claim that the deceased was travelling by the train on a valid ticket and therefore, the respondent-applicant is not entitled for any compensation. It is further, contended that the deceased attempted to get down from the moving train in a careless manner and the accident occurred due to his own fault and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an “untoward incident” and that, there was accidental fall of a passenger from the train.
8. As per Section 123 (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, “untoward incident” means the accidental fall by any passenger from any traincarrying passenger. The accidental fall of any passenger also comes within the ambit of “untoward incident”. The respondent-applicant therefore, is also entitled for compensation on account of the “untoward incident”. The Railway Board basing on the inquest report held that the deceased met with an accident in which his two legs were cut and received several injuries and his clothes were lost and therefore, the deceased might have been lost the ticket in the process of taking him to the hospital. The Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and fell down from the train while trying to get down. I do not see any reason to take a different view other than the one taken by the Tribunal and the appellant-respondent has not adduced any material or documents to disprove the claim of the respondent-applicant. The Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent-applicant and the order of the Tribunal do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
9. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.