IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE:23-03-2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.409 of 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND S.Chandravva and others --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.409 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.332 of 2002 dated 26-02-2008 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 read with Sections 124-A and 125-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondent claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following death of S.Srinivas Goud, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out in the application, are as follows : On 09-03-2001 the deceased while travelling from Nizamabad to Secunderabad by 564 Mudkhed-Secunderabad as a bona fide passenger accidentally fell down at K.M.no.461/8-9 between Nizamabad and Dichpally railway stations and died. Hence the applicants being the wife and children and dependants of the deceased are entitled to the compensation. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further claiming that as per message issued by the Asst. Station Master, Nizamabad to GRP/Nizamabad, Keman Gang No.3 at 08.30 hrs., on 10.03.2001 found an unknown dead body lying by the side of the track at KM 461/8-9 near bridge No.480 between Nizambad and Dichappli railway stations and there was no eyewitness to the accidental fall from the train 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? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3) Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1. and another witness was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A- 1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest thereon from the date of order till the date of actual payment at 9% p.a., payable to the applicants. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as per the relevant inquest report the deceased died unmarried but in para 1 of the order, the applicants are shown as his wife and children, which aspect was not considered by the Tribunal properly in order to arrive at the truth of it and further as per the 5th para of the order of the Tribunal, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 marked on behalf of the railways but the same evidence was also not considered by the Tribunal and hence the order passed by the Tribunal is not tenable and is liable to be set aside. 9. It is to be mainly examined as to whether sufficient evidence was placed before the Court that the deceased happened to be an unmarried person or married person and whether he had any dependants of himself and further it is to be seen why the evidence of R.W.1 and the contents of Exs.R.1 and R.2 were not taken into consideration for the disposal of the case properly. Hence, the matter is to be remanded to answer those questions. Without answering those questions, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal is comprehensive or adequate. 10. Hence for the above reasons, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to examine the matter in the light of the observation made above and then dispose of the matter. Further as the application has become very old, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL NOTE: Having gone through the order, it is noticed that it is not clearly mentioned therein as to what exhibits were marked and who were examined exactly and the corresponding appendix is also not found therein in accordance with the order, as a result of which much confusion is being caused to examine the matter lucidly. In-fact, in almost all the applications disposed of by the Tribunal, same lacunae are found. Therefore, the Tribunal has to see that such formalities are taken care of scrupulously while passing any order in any such application before it.