MOTILAL B. NALK, J.

( 1 ) SINCE a common question of law is raised in all these Appeals, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

( 2 ) THESE appeals are preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1987 by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central railway, Secunderabad, against five different awards made by the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the appellant-Railways in these appeals, a common question of law is urged before this Court contending that the payment of compensation in respect of an untoward incident arises if the deceased are bonafide railway passengers with a valid ticket and there should be an accidental fall of the deceased passenger from the train carrying passengers.

( 4 ) BEFORE answering the legal issue raised before us, we shall now discuss, in brief, facts of each case separately. C. M. A. No. 2374 of 1998:

( 5 ) THIS appeal is filed against the order in OAA No. 130 of 1997 dated 6-7-1998. Two claimants filed the said OAA claiming compensation for the death caused to the deceased in an untoward incident. According the claimants who are the parents of the deceased, on 16-11-1997 the deceased was proceeding to Vikarabad by Wadi- falaknuma passenger train, from Dharur on a journey ticket bearing No. 15494. While he was boarding the above passenger train at dharur Railway Station, the train suddenly started moving, as a result of which he slipped and fell down and was run over by the train. Though he was immediately shifted to the Railway Hospital, Vikarabad, he succumbed to his injuries on the said day. The applicants, therefore, claimed a. compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of the deceased.

( 6 ) THE respondents filed a written statement opposing the claim stating that the deceased attempted to get into a moving train and as a result, the incident occurred and as such, it cannot be termed as an untoward incident and the Railway is not liable to pay compensation.

( 7 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled, viz. , (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (3) Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? (4) To what relief? on behalf of the applicants, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, r. W. I was examined and Ex. B-1 was marked.

( 8 ) P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased who filed Ex. A-6 to show that the deceased who is his son is a resident of Halathkeri. He also filed Ex. A-7 showing that the 2nd applicant is his wife. P. W. 2 who is a friend of the deceased and who also travelled along with the deceased to Vikarabad stated that they came to Dharuru from Bidar on 15-11-1997 and as they wanted to travel to Vikarabad, purchased two tickets. He deposed that when the passenger train arrived, he got into the coach first and then the deceased was trying to board the train and the train started and in that process the deceased slipped and fell under the train. Later, the train was stopped within a few yards. The deceased who was seriously injured, was carried in the same train and taken to Vikarabad railway Hospital where he died at 8. 30 p. m.

( 9 ) ON behalf of the Railways, R. W. 1 who is the Assistant Station Master of Dharur railway Station was examined. He deposed that after the train No. 359 started from the station, Government Railway Police reported to the Station Superintendent that a passenger had been run over by the train. Then, the Station Superintendent went to the spot and arranged for hospitalization of the injured and after return the Superintendent informed him that the deceased was holding a journey ticket bearing No. 00561 from dharur to Bidar. Witness deposed that he recorded this fact in his register and sent messages to all concerned.

( 10 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal hel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document