HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.261 OF 2006 Dated 29-1-2011 Between: 1. Shaik Mahabunnisa. 2. Shaik Zaherabi. 3. Shaik Rehaman Ali. …Appellants. And: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.261 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the orders dated 20-10-2005 passed in O.A.A.No.146 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, Bench at Secunderabad. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the said O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the said O.A.A. The O.A.A. No.146 of 1999 was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-by the applicants who happened to be the mother and minor sisters of the deceased whereas the applicants 2 and 3 have been represented by the 1st applicant. It is pleaded in the O.A.A. that the deceased while travelling in second class general compartment from Trivendram to Vijayawada by train No.2625 Kerala Express slipped and fell down on 1-4-1999 at K.M.401/17-19 between Tenali and Durrigala Railway Stations and sustained injuries and died on the spot and he happened to be a bonafide passenger of the train. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants. On the strength of the pleas taken by both the sides, the following issues were settled for trial: 1) Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Shaik Mastan Ali? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2625 Trivandrum to New Delhi Kerala Express travelling from Trivandrum to Vijayawada on 31-3-1999? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Tenali and Duggirala Railway Stations as alleged? 4) To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 which happened to be copies of F.I.R., and Inquest Report, in crime number 29 of 1999 on the file of Tenali Police Station, death certificate of the deceased issued by concerned Municipality and Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tenali, were marked respectively. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that no witnesses to the incident was examined and no valid ticket was seized from the dead body and so on. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. It is the contention of learned counsel of the appellants that the respondent has not established that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train and further as per the Inquest Report, the deceased travelled by the train and slipped down, and received injuries and died which is sufficient to establish the claim of the applicants whereas the respondent failed to discharge the burden that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train and the tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and came to incorrect conclusions and hence, the order passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside and the application is to be allowed. POINT: If there is acceptable evidence to the effect that the deceased travelled by the train, then it is for the respondent placing satisfactory evidence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train. Mere marking of the inquest report and F.I.R. is not sufficient compliance here. Inquest report is relevant to ascertain cause of death of concerned person without touching any details about those responsible for the death. F.I.R. is relevant to get criminal law into motion and it can be used as corroborative piece of evidence only. So without examining any witness to the incident and without seizing relevant ticket, it cannot be said that the factum of accident is established. Therefore, the application is not tenable. The tribunal considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with its order. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 29-1-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.261 OF 2006 Dated 29-1-2011