1 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 APHC010287332019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 403/2019 Between: 1. T DURGA, W/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 14-41-231, BESIDE WATER TANK, RANADHIR NAGAR,KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA TOWN ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep by its generel Manager, south central railway, secundrabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersMemorandum of Grounds of civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Honble court against the order made in OAII(u) No. 324/2009 dt.21-06-2019 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellant/claimant in OA/II/u/324 of 2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 21.06.2019, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant. 2. The appellant is the mother of one T. Prabhu Kishore (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). It is the case of the appellant that on 05.01.2009, the deceased along with his friend reached Secunderabad Railway Station where, the deceased is said to have purchased II class ticket to Guntur and his friend purchased another ticket to Piduguralla. Both the deceased and his friend boarded the train bearing No.2704 – Faluknama Express and after the friend of the deceased alighted the train at Piduguralla Railway Station, the deceased is said to have fell down accidentally from the said train during night hours of 05.01.2009 at Pedakurapadu railway station due to jerks of the train and died on the spot. On 06.01.2009, upon receipt of information, the Government Railway Police registered a case in Crime No.03 of 2009 and investigated into the matter. 3. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the application. It was contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that he used to sell samosas’ unauthorizedly in the train without any valid ticket. It is the further case of the respondent that the deceased was habituated to taking intoxication of ganja and that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 4 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the Application is maintainable? 2. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased? 3. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question while travelling from Secunderabad to Guntur? 4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 5. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application? 6. To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, the appellant got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The respondent got marked Ex.R1 – Report of Divisional Railway Manager and got examined R.Ws.1 and 2. 6. The Tribunal, after going through the material available before its, came to a conclusion that though the deceased would have fallen from the said train, he is not a bonafide passenger as he was not travelling with a valid ticket and that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of the deceased. Observing thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 21.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was preferred. 7. Heard Sri. I. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Uma Devi Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 8. It can be seen from the affidavit filed by the claimants that the deceased is said to have boarded the train No.2704 – Falaknuma Express at Secunderabad on 05.01.2009 after purchasing a II Class Train ticket to Guntur, along with his friend who got down the train at Piduguralla railway station. The deceased accidentally fell down from the train at Pedakurapadu railway station, died on the spot and his dead body was found by the duty Key-man on 06.01.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. Though the appellant claims that the deceased along with his friend have boarded the said train after purchasing tickets, neither such ticket was recovered from the dead body and its surroundings nor the same was testified by the friend of the deceased. Except relying on the FIR (Ex.A.1), Inquest report (Ex.A.2) and Postmortem examination report (Ex.A.3), the appellant has not put forth any key witness or evidence to strengthen her claim. Furthermore, though the appellant contends that she was informed by the deceased before boarding the train to Guntur that he purchased a ticket, such ticket was not found by the Police either with the dead body or its surroundings during inquest. Thus, it cannot be believed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 9. The respondent on the other side had relied on the Divisional Railway Manager’s report which is marked as Ex.R.2. Apart from the same, R.W.2 – the then IPF/Maulali filed a sworn affidavit stating that while he recorded the statement of friend of the deceased by name Gorantla Dinesh, who deposed that he along with the deceased used to eke out their livelihood by selling samosas’ unauthorizedly and that on the fateful day, he along with the deceased travelled by train No.2704 from Secunderabad. He further deposed that the deceased had the habit of taking Ganja and that on the date of incident, before boarding the train at 6 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 Secunderabad, the deceased consumed ganja. It appears from the material on record that though R.W.2 was cross examined, no contrary fact was elicited with regard to the recorded statement of Gorantla Dinesh. 10. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. Rina Devi1, held that mere absence of ticket with an injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger and that the initial burden would be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. 11. However, in the case on hand, the appellant merely deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased purchased a ticket before his travel in the train, but has admitted that she did not mention the same in her affidavit. Undisputedly, initial burden would be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue could be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. In the case on hand, no such affidavit was filed by the appellant and moreover, the fact is clearly established from the recorded statement of Gorantla Dinesh that the deceased used to sell samosas unauthorizedly and that he is used to intoxication of ganja. The evidence is clear that the deceased is a habitual hawker. In such circumstances, the deposition of the appellant that the deceased purchased a valid train journey ticket before boarding the train is highly doubtful and the same cannot be relied on. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appellant is not entitled to any kind of compensation 1 AIR 2018 SC 2362 7 VS,J CMA_403 of 2019 on account of the death of the deceased. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi does not warrant any interference. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:05.02.2026. Gss