HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.413 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.199 of 2002, dated 25-02-2008, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act and read with Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following the death of Meka Satyanarayana, allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.199 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case as set out in the application are as follows : On 11-08-2001, the deceased left his village on some personal work and the applicants came to know on the next day that the deceased died due to accidental fall from a train at Godavari Bidge at K.M.No.575/7-9 near Rajahmundry holding a valid ticket No.34739111 to travel from Rajahmundry to Kovvur, which was seized by the Government Railway police. Hence the applicants filed the application. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the deceased was found with injuries at about 7.30 hrs on the morning of 12-08-2001 by a Railway Keyman and as per the F.I.R, he was alive with right ankle injury and as per the inquest report, he was alive up to 12.15 hrs. on 12-08-2001 having received injuries and as per the PME report, the cause of death was due to anti-morem injuries whereas there was no head injury and therefore the applicants concocted a story to obtain benefit from the railways fraudulently and prayed to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Meka Satyanarayana? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train carrying passengers travelling from Rajahundry to Kovvur on 12-08-2001? 3) Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train carrying passengers? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R.1 besides marking Exs.C.1 to C.31. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation directing the respondent to pay Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest thereon at 9% p.a., from the date of order till the date of actual payment to the applicants as compensation. 8. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Ex.A.2-inquest report, the ticket was found in possession of the deceased and it is not mentioned therein as to whether it was seized or not and there is no basis to say that the ticket was seized by the concerned G.R.P even otherwise and further in the application, it is not mentioned even as to by what train the deceased travelled and by what time he fell down from such train and further there was long gap between the alleged time of fall and the time of conducting the inquest over the dead body, which circumstances amply prove that the deceased never travelled as a passenger in any train and even supposing that he travelled by train, there is no basis to say that he was holding a valid ticket to do so and the Tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and failed to arrive at correct conclusions. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether there is ample evidence to the effect that the deceased travelled by train as bona fide passenger/not as a bona fide passenger and whether the Tribunal properly examined the matter. 10. POINT: It is to be seen that according to R.W.1, the key man of the railways, he found the deceased with injuries at 7.30 a.m., on 12-08- 2001 and then he informed the concerned G.R.P about the same, following which the case was registered. It is not spoken by him as to whether he checked the deceased and found any ticket. Further as per Ex.A.2-inquest report, the inquest was conducted over the dead body on 13-08-2001 at 10.00 a.m. in the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry by the G.R.P. and a ticket bearing No.34739111 was found then. It does not speak whether the same ticket was seized or not. Either the applicant or the Railways or the Tribunal should have taken necessary measures to examine concerned Panchayatdar or sub-inspector for the purpose of establishing the contents of the inquest report. Further it is important that at the time of marking a copy of the inquest report, no objection appears to have been made in doing so. Further it is a well established principle of law that objects found at the time of inquest are also to be taken into consideration. 11. Hence, the contents of the inquest report including the contents with regard to the seizure of the objects are to be taken into consideration. Therefore, it proves that the ticket was found in the possession of the deceased when the inquest over the dead body was conducted. Further, when it is accepted, then it is for the railways to ascertain whether the ticket is a valid one. On the basis of relevant ticket issue Register, the same can be proved. What is required is whether the over all circumstances are sufficient to hold that the deceased travelled by train and fell down and received injuries. A fact can be proved by circumstantial evidence or direct evidence. Therefore, simply because, there is no material to the effect that she travelled by a particular train it does not mean that the entire claim made by the applicants is not true. 12. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. 13. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs to be paid by the respondents. __________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date: 01-04-2011 VJL/KVR