IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2006 BETWEEN Mohd. Ghousuddin and Another ... PETITIONERS AND The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.473 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against order of remand made in O.A.A.No.109 of 2001 dated 17.02.2006 filed under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 for awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following the death of M. Saleemuddin. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the said application. For convenience sake I refer to the parties as arrayed in the said O.A.A hereafter. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the parents of the deceased who was doing business. On 28.03.2001, the deceased aboarded passenger train No.572 to travel from Budwel to Dabeerpura and on the way at Falaknuma railway station he slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries and on 02.04.2001, he died while taking treatment and then inquest over the dead body was conducted and his ticket was seized. Further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Hence the application. 4. The respondent filed its written statement submitting that the deceased was traveling by the train that while he was on the foot board of the train hence his legs came into contact with the edge of the platform that consequently his legs were crushed and that then he was taken to a hospital where he died. Further, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train to accept the claim. 5. On the strength of pleadings, the Tribunal claimed the following issues: 1) Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Mohd. Aleemuddin? 2) Whether the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of train No.572 passenger, traveling from Budwel to Dabeerpura on 28-03-2001? 3) Whether the deceased sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Falaknuma railway station and succumbed to injuries on 04-04-2011? 6. On behalf of the applicants the first of them got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked documents about which there is no mention in the order. Further on behalf of the respondent, the guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and no exhibits were marked. 7. Basing upon the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicants holding that the deceased did not fall from the train and there was no untoward incident. 8. Therefore, it is to be considered as to (i) Whether the deceased happened to be a bonafide passenger of the train? (ii) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? 9. It is pertinent to note here that it is clearly admitted by the respondent in its written statement that the deceased was travelling by the train, whereas it is further claimed by the respondent that the deceased was standing on the foot board of one of the compartments of the train and therefore his legs came into contact with the edge of the platform and both of his legs were crushed and he was taken to a hospital and so on, was not a bonafide passenger of the train. By virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India[1], even such cases come within the purview of untoward incident as envisaged under Section 123(C) of the Railways Act, subject to bonafide travel by a train by a particular passenger. 11. It is the contention of learned standing counsel for the respondent that the guard of the train gave a message to the Station Superintendent at Budwel to the effect that he saw a person falling from the train but found no ticket with him and a copy of the message was shown to the Tribunal whereas the same was not considered by the Tribunal. He has also shown a copy of the message to the Court. 12. The same message is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at proper adjudication in the matter. Nobody was examined after examining the guard of the train with reference to the same document. Hence the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal for necessary adjudication accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to give opportunity to establish the message by examining concerned witness and then to give opportunity to the applicants to adduce necessary further evidence and then to dispose of the matter afresh on the material available. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 17.02.2011 SP HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.473 OF 2006 17-02-2011 SP [1] 2010 ACJ 2453