THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1994 OF 2003 DATED: 02-02-2011. Between Pusala Ratnalu … Appellant And Union of India rep. by General Manager, Eastern Railway, at Calcutta. …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1994 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the applicant, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 27-08-2002 in O.A.A No.91 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of her husband namely, Pusarla Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the deceased with one Lakshmi Narayana, wanted to go to Vizianagaram on 17-03-1998, that Lakshmi Narayana went to Visakhapatnam Railway Station and purchased tickets for him and for the deceased and boarded Visakhaptnam-Rayagada passenger and the deceased was expected to board at Marripalem Railway Station. As Marripalem Railway Station is not ticket issuing station and it is only a halt station, he took ticket at Visakhapatnam and when the train reached Marripalem, the deceased while boarding the train in the compartment of Lakshmi Narayana, slipped and fell down accidentally from the train due to jerk and sudden movement of the train, as a result, his head was broken on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the deceased did not fall accidentally from the train and further he was not a bona fide passenger, that as per panchanama conducted by the police, the deceased while boarding the train fell down, which amounts to self inflicted injuries and the applicant was not the dependent of the deceased 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3.Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4.To what relief? 5. During the enquiry, the applicant examined herself as AW1 and also Lakshmi Narayana as A.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. The Investigating Officer who registered the case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased was examined as Court witness as C.W.1 and through him, Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he is a victim of untoward incident and accordingly, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicant. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant contended that after conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, the inquest mediators opined that the there is no need to send the dead body for postmortem examination especially when A.W.2’s evidence is adduced to speak to the factum that the deceased fell down from the compartment and his head was broken into pieces, that therefore, an untoward incident has taken place and hence, she prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways contended that the death of the deceased has not been established by evidence and the police might have hand in glove with the applicant so as to assist her in a claim of this nature, that the trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record, rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. In order to claim compensation consequent on the death of a person who traveled in a train as a bona fide passenger, the first ingredient is the applicant has to establish that the death of a person is resulting from the accident. Unless the death of a person resulting from accident is established, question of granting compensation does not arise. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, A.W.2 was present and he actually saw the untoward incident while the deceased falling from the compartment. Therefore, there is no need to send the dead body for necropsy. Police during the course of investigation, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The holding of inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain apparent cause of the death of the deceased. The opinion of mediators of inquest is not a final or conclusive opinion as to the cause of the death of a person. After inquest, necessarily the body of a person must be subjected to postmortem examination for the purpose of knowing the nature of injuries, whether they are accidental or homicidal and cause of death of a person. The presence of A.W.2 is doubtful at the time of incident. A.W.1 stated that A.W.2 purchased two tickets for himself and for deceased. But he has not produced the tickets. If really A.W.2 was present, certainly he would have reported the matter to the police. He being the Sub contractor of Railways would have certainly reported the matter to the Railway authorities immediately after the incident. The conduct of A.W.2 in not informing the police about the incident give raise to any amount of doubt about his presence at the time of alleged untoward incident. Even otherwise, the death of the deceased is accidental one has not been established beyond preponderance of probability. The Investigating Officer is the best person to speak as to why he did not send the dead body for postmortem examination. There is a serious lapse on the part of investigating in sending the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination, which gives raise to a suspicion as to whether the deceased had fallen from the passenger train. The extreme contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the death of the deceased is proved by the inquest report cannot be accepted. If that is to be accepted, any body can say that some person died and his L.Rs are entitled for compensation. Further, the observation made in column 12 of inquest report is not admissible in evidence for the simple reason that recitals in the inquest report, which is based upon information given by some third parties, is not admissible in evidence. The objective findings of the police officials are only admissible. Though it is stated that the head of the deceased was broken into pieces, but the police have not sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Hence, the same cannot be taken to prove the death of the deceased. If the dead body was sent to postmortem examination, the truth would have been come out. So for the reasons best known to the police, the dead body was not sent to postmortem examination. Therefore, the trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record, rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 02-02-2011 Hsd