HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.930 OF 2006 Dated 29-1-2011 Between: Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. …Appellant. And: P.Suryanarayana and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.930 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (1) The appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against orders dated 5-6-2006 passed in O.A.A.No.177 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, Bench at Secunderabad. The Appellant herein is the respondent-Union of India and respondents herein are the applicants in the said O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the O.A.A. (2) The Applicants filed the claim application against the respondent-Union of India under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act seeking to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to them following death of their son Vishnumurthy. (3) The claim of the applicants is as follows: The deceased Vishnumurthy went to Hyderabad for employment and on 13-7-2002, he boarded Gautami Express at Secunderabad Railway Station in order to return to Rajahmumundry, and when the train reached platform No.1 of Godavari Railway Station, he accidentally fell down from the running train and died. He happened to be a bonafide passenger of the train. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation claimed by them. (4) The respondent filed written statement claiming that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train and the key man of Godavari Railway Station found a male dead body lying at KM 575/4 at Gannavaram Railway Station on track having ticket No.07119423 at 8.20 hours on 14-7-2002 and reported the matter to the Station Master Godavari for taking necessary action. Further, the guard of the train informed that the train passed through Godavari Railway station at 05.47 hours and no information was received about the occurrence. Ultimately, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. (5) On the strength of the pleas taken by both the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues. 1. Whether the applicants are dependants 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 accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? (6) On behalf of the applicants, the first of them was examined as AW1 and got marked Exs.A.1 o A.7 which happened to be copies of relevant F.I.R., Inquest Report, Postmortem report, C.D. Part II, Ticket, news paper cutting and dependent certificate respectively. (7) On behalf of the railways, no evidence was adduced. (8) Examining the material available on record, the tribunal held all the issues in favour of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with a direction to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which to pay interest at 6% p.a., from then onwards till payment of the amount. Further, the tribunal permitted the applicants to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- each directing to keep the remaining amount in F.D.R. for a period of three years in any nationalized bank and to credit half yearly interest accrued on it in S.B. accounts to be opened by them. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. (9) There is no representation on behalf of the respondents and arguments on their side is closed. Heard learned Counsels and perused the material available on record. (10) It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that Ex.A.7 was issued on an ordinary white paper without using letter head of the concerned panchayat and in that also, it was not mentioned as to whether he was married or not and therefore, it cannot be accepted and hence, the relationship of the deceased with the applicants is not proved and the tribunal incorrectly held the first issue in favour of the applicants. Further it is his contention that no eye witness to the occurrence was examined whereas the gate man of the respondent found the dead body on 14-7-2002 at 8-20 hours, and thereafter, the matter was reported to the higher officials of the railways. It is his further contention that only Xerox copy of the so called general ticket was recovered and in the application, the ticket number is given as 07119423 but in the chief affidavit it is given as 97119423 and why its original was not produced is not explained and therefore, it is not established that he actually travelled by the train. It is also his contention that in the F.I.R. and Inquest Report, no train number is mentioned and therefore, it cannot be said that the claim is authenticated. (11) In order to dispose of the appeal, the following points are framed: 1. Whether the relationship between the claimants and the deceased is established? 2. Whether it is established that the deceased actually travelled by the train and in such a case, whether he happened to be a bonafide passenger of the train before he was found dead? 3. Whether the tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion? (12) POINT No.1: With regards to the relationship between the applicants and the deceased, Ex.A.7 provides that the deceased happened to be the son of the applicants. In fact, it is not written on any letter head of concerned Grampanchayat but it need not be taken seriously. The age of the deceased is given as 30 years. So, it should have been noted as to whether he was married or not. However, I do not have any suspicion about the Legal Heir Certificate as it appears that it was given by concerned gram panchayat whereas the discrepancies pointed are minor. Hence, the question of relationship between the deceased and the applicants is established as required. (13) POINT No.2: Initially, the burden is upon the applicants to prove that the deceased actually traveled by Gowthami train. It is pertinent to note that no ticket from the deceased was recovered. Further, it is significant that a Xerox copy of such ticket was filed before the tribunal along with the application. Further there are discrepancies with regard to the ticket number in the application and in the chief affidavit. Further, it is also important that no eye witness to the occurrence was examined. Even supposing that nobody could see the occurrence, at least, there should be other supporting evidence to uphold the claim of the applicants about the occurrence which is actually absent here. Therefore, the occurrence is not established and consequently, no compensation can be awarded to the applicants. (14) POINT No.3: Having gone through the order of the tribunal, it is clear to me that the tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions with regards to the accident, hence the order passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside. (15) In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the tribunal. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 29-1-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.930 OF 2006 Dated 29-1-2011