HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 903 OF 2008 . DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 201 BETWEEN Kalu Khuntia and anr …Appellants And Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 903 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunal Act is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 27.9.2005 passed in OAA.No. 97 of 1998 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, rejected the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants for award of compensation on account of the alleged death of their son in the alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train on 20.7.1997. Heard. Perused the case file. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in the proper perspective and erroneously rejected the application filed by the appellants/applicants. He pointed out that the evidence on record would clinchingly establish that the deceased had died due to accidentally falling from the moving train and that he was a bona fide passenger. It was the case of the applicants, who are parents of the deceased that their son--Suresh Khuntia travelled by train No.1020:Bhubaneswar-Mumbai Konark Express in II Class general compartment holding valid journey ticket to go to Mumbai on 20.7.1997. It was their further case that their son was accompanied by his paternal uncle M.Madan who got down at Visakhapatnam Railway Station. It was stated in the claim application that while their son was travelling in the aforesaid train, accidentally fell down between KM No.237/6-8 Bhongir-Pagidipalli Railway Stations as result of which he succumbed to injuries on 21.7.1997. Hence they sought for compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Per contra, the respondent-Railway denied the averments made in the application. It was the case of the respondent-Railway that the injuries noted in the inquest report would show that the said injuries do not appear to be on account of falling from the train. They denied the contention of the appellants/applicants that the deceased was holding a valid ticket in as much as no journey ticket was found from the dead body of the deceased. Further they denied that the dead body was of the deceased as the head found separated lying on down line at KM No.237/6-8 at 1620 hours on 21.7.1997. Admittedly, one Mr. Yadagiri, railway gateman found the dead body of a male person between up and down line with separated head at KM.No.237/6-8 at 1620 hours on 21.7.1997. By the time of arrival of the relatives (AW2-Paternal uncle and another) of the deceased to Bhongir, the dead body of the deceased was got buried by the police. On witnessing the photographs, cloths and telephone number book, they identified that the deceased-Suresh Khuntia died in the accident. However, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from them as to how they identified the dead body was of the deceased. Though it is stated that they got exhumed the dead body of the deceased for further identification, no such evidence is forthcoming to accept the statement. The facts established on record would disclose that A.W.2 has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to substantiate that he travelled along with the deceased and got down at Visakhpaatnam Railway Station. Further Ex.C.4-final report also does not disclose as to when A.W.2 and another approached the police to identify the dead body of the deceased and his cloths, photographs etc.,. Ex.C.3 discloses that the identification marks on the dead body were not in identifiable state due to oil and blood stains and injuries. Further a perusal of the Ex.A.4-inquest report would show that the lying of the dead body where the head was separated from the body raises doubt and suspicion that death of the deceased does not appear to be on account of falling from the train. Further it discloses that the head of the deceased found in pieces and brain of the deceased was found splitting in between the railway tracks. Even Es.A.6 death certificate did not contain the date to show when it was issued . Under such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly drew an adverse inference that the identity of the deceased person is doubtful and not established beyond reasonable doubt. There is no gain-saying that when such serious accident takes place there is every possibility of ticket being lost in the accident. However, A.W.2 deposed that he accompanied the deceased upto Visakhapatnam Railway Station, but he failed to establish the same and thereby there was no supporting evidence to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. As the burden which lies on the appellants/applicants remained undischarged by them, there is no other option except to disbelieve the case of the appellants/applicants. The Tribunal on due consideration of the evidence and material available on record, rightly held that the identity of the deceased person was not established and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29th November, 2011. Msnro