HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.44 OF 2006 Dated 4-2-2011 Between: Union of India, represented by its General Manager, S.E.Railways, Kolkata (Calcutta). …Appellant. And: Bogila Amala. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.44 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (1) The C.M.A. is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Act, 1987 to set aside common order passed in O.A.A.Nos.290 and 291 of 2001 to the extent of O.A.A.No.291 of 2001. (2) The respondent herein is the applicant and the appellant herein is the respondent in O.A.A.No.291 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the two matters. (3) The applicant filed separate claims for award of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs in each matter under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short ‘the Act’) read with Sections 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 on the ground that her parents G.Madhavarao Patnaik and Smt.G.Anasuyamma while traveling in train No.DMU 237 passenger from Rayagada to Parvathipuram, and also while it was alighting at Parvatipuram railway station, slipped and fell down from the train and then the train ran over them, as a result of which, they received injuries and died on the spot and they happened to be bonafide passengers of the train. Further Later on, necessary formalities followed. (4) The respondent filed written statement denying the claim. (5) The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Smt.G.Anasuyamma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train 237 passenger traveling from Rayagada to Parvathipuram on 6-8-01? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Parvathipuram Railway Station? 4. To what relief? (6) The applicant filed her sworn statement in support of her claim and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7, which are copies of relevant F.I.R., inquest reports, postmortem reports and legal heir certificate etc., to prove her claims. (7) On the basis of material available on the record, the Tribunal held that the applicant proved her claim and accordingly allowed the applications and granted the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in each case. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has preferred this appeal. (8) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that no ticket was recovered and no eye witness was examined though as per the inquest report there were eye witnesses. Further it is contended that the death may be due to the old age of the deceased. Further the Tribunal arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. It is also his contention that in the legal heir certificate, only the name of the applicant is given as the legal heir of the deceased and it does not speak as to whether the deceased got other legal heirs and further the applicant happened to be a resident of Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District but the legal heir certificate was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal and therefore, it is to be clarified as to how it was issued by that authority and how far it is authenticated. (9) No dispute is raised ultimately with regard to the other issues of the case. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered in this appeal as to whether the legal heir certificate was issued properly or not and whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation awarded. (10) As per the application, the applicant happened to be a resident of Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District but as per the legal heir certificate, the deceased G.Madhavarao patnaik worked as HC in A.P.S.E.B., Kakinada, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Ramanayyapet village and retired in the year 1991 and expired on 7-8-2001 and on the basis of his death certificate issued by the Mandal Office, Parvathipuram and on the strength of enquiry held by the Revenue Inspector, Kakinada, it was proved that the applicant happened to be the legal heir of the deceased. (11) It is pertinent to note that according to the applicant, the deceased happened to be a resident of Kakinada Rural mandal. (12) So there is no ambiguity and suspicion about the genuineness of the legal heir certificate. It need not be questioned on the ground that there is no clarity about other legal heirs of the deceased in view of the circumstances of the case. When the deceased was at Kakinada it is quite natural if the legal heir certificate was issued by the M.R.O. Kakinada. Hence, I accept the legal heir certificate and hold that the applicant happened to be the only legal heir of the deceased being the daughter of the deceased parents. (13) The tribunal had considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the same. (14) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 4-2-2011. Dvs/Ksm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.44 OF 2006 Dated 4-2-2011