THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1853 OF 1999 20th August 2009 Between: Union of India, by its General Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. D.Nagamalleswari, W/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, 23 years, C/o.Suryanarayana, R/o.5th lane, Ramakshetram, Near Nallacheruvu, Guntur. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1853 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.A.A.No.5 of 1998 in the Secunderabad Bench of Railways Claims Tribunal {“the Tribunal” for short}, claiming compensation for the death of late Venkateswara Rao. They pleaded that the said Venkateswara Rao was travelling in a passenger train between Vijayawada and Guntur on 15.10.1997 and he fell down from the train near the cabin of Reddypalem Cabin, due to jerk. The appellants opposed the claim disputing the occurrence of the accident. Through its order dated 23.11.1998, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- {Rupees two lakh only} as compensation and apportioned among the respondents. The same is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Sri T.Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was no proof as to the occurrence of the accident. He, further, contends that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, since no ticket was recovered from his body. He, further, submits that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence properly. Sri K.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the accident was witnessed by none other than the Assistant Station Master of Reddypalem, who was examined as R.W.2 and nothing more is required. He also submits that since the deceased has fallen from a running train, it is difficult to recover ticket from him and at any rate, no efforts were made by the concerned to recover it. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration. 1. Whether the Applicants are dependants of the deceased; 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger; 3. Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident; and 4. To what relief? On behalf of the respondents P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and on behalf of the appellant, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. P.W.1 is the first respondent. She did not witness the occurrence. P.W.2 is a fellow passenger, who is said to have seen the deceased purchasing a ticket at Vijayawada. R.W.1 is the guard of the train and R.W.2 is the Assistant Station Master of the Reddypalem Station. All the issues were answered in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that there is a serious dispute as to the occurrence of the accident itself. He placed reliance upon the evidence of R.W.2. It is a strange case, where evidence of one witness is denied by another witness examined by the same party. R.W.2 has stated that he gave clearance to the train at Reddypalem station, where it is not supposed to stop and when the last bogie was passing, he noticed the deceased falling from the train. It is he, who submitted the report and arranged for shifting the deceased to the hospital at Guntur. R.W.1, the guard, however, says that had the accident occurred; R.W.2 would have given a red signal. This is almost a strange proposition. When the accident took place, almost when the train passed the Cabin, R.W.2 was not expected to give any red signal. In fact, he mentioned that soon after the accident, he informed the Control G.R.P. at Guntur and Control at Vijayawada. These are born out by records. Another aspect argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased. It has already been mentioned that the death occurred when the deceased has fallen from a running train. Except the Railway Officials, none were there. Their effort would be to shift the person to the nearest hospital, than to search for ticket and other belongings. The Tribunal has discussed all the issues from the correct perspective and arrived at a proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 20th August 2009 RRB