IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 11-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.331 OF 2006 Between: Billakurthi Ammani and two others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.331 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This application is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against order dated 17-01-2006 in O.A.A. No.192 of 2000 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellants- applicants. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the said O.A.A. No.192 of 2000. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the wife and children of late one B. Venkata Reddy. On 26-06-2000, the deceased started at 8.00 a.m. from Samalkot Railway Station to go to Tuni by train No. 7487 (Tirupathi – Visakhapatnam express) and on the way, he slipped and fell down from the train in between Hamsavaram and Tuni at K.M. No. 678/36 - 679/2 and hence, the untoward incident took place and further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Further, therefore the applicants being his Legal Heirs are entitled to the compensation claimed. 4. The claim of the respondent is total denial of the claim of the applicants. It is further the claim of the respondent that the dead body was not noticed till 11-30 a.m. on 27-06-2000 and the track happened to be a double line by which number of trains would pass, and his death occurred in a different way. Ultimately, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Billakurti Venkata Reddy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.7487 Tirupathi – Visakhapatnam Tirumala Express travelling from Samalkot to Tuni on 26-06-2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Hamsavaram and Tuni Railway Stations? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them i.e., wife of the deceased got examined herself as AW.1 and also examined one Jogi Reddy who claimed to have accompanied the deceased to the railway station before the train left for Samalkot as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be copies of relevant First Information Report, Inquest Report, Post-mortem Examination Report, Death Certificate and no Objection Certificate respectively, whereas the originals of the said documents were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-4. 7. On behalf of the respondent the Guard of the train was examined as R.W-1 and rough journal was marked as Ex.R-1. 8. The Tribunal held the 1st issue in favour of the applicants and further held the 2nd and 3rd issues against the applicants on the ground that the dead body was not traced or noticed for a period of about 24 hours and no eye witness was examined and mere mentioning of the ticket number without the date of journey or producing a copy of it along with the claim petition, is not sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicants and as per the inquest report, along with the ticket, cash of Rs.23/- and identity cards of the deceased were seized there under and the mediators for the inquest might be interested witnesses and it would also be quite possible that AW-2 was set up as witness for the purpose of supporting the claim of the applicants. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that it is very important that the F.I.R. was registered on the report given by the Deputy Superintendent of Railway Station by the concerned Railway Police at Tuni and at the time of inquest conducted over the dead body on 27-06-2000 from 4-00 p.m. to 6-00 p.m. one ticket bearing No.58680, cash of Rs.23/- and two identity cards were seized from the dead body and Post-mortem over the dead body was conducted on 28-06-2000 at 10-00 a.m. and it was opined that the death occurred between 36 to 56 hours prior to the Post-mortem examination which agree with the claim of the applicant and further the evidence of AW-2 is quite natural and in the circumstances of the case, there is no reason to reject the claim of the applicants but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that it is very important that no date is found on the ticket and no steps were taken to ascertain as to when it was issued and there was a possibility of plantation of the ticket and it is also very important that no eye witness was examined to prove the incident and the tribunal properly considered the matter and hence, there is no reason to interfere with its order. 11. In reply, it is contended on behalf of the applicants that in fact, the respondent should have called for the record to ascertain the ticket for the purpose of establishing that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train. To substantiate the claim of the applicants, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon unreported decision of this Court in UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, CALCUTTA AND GOLEKH CHANDRA SAMAL AND ANOTHER (C.M.A. No.1010 of 2005 delivered on 26-03-2010), wherein claim made by certain persons under similar circumstances was upheld. 12. It is to be mainly considered as to whether the deceased travelled by the train and if so whether he was a bonafide passenger? 13. When there is no direct witness to the incident circumstantial evidence is to be taken into consideration to establish the incident. The most significant factor here is that after 24 hours of the alleged incident the dead body was traced. If the claim made by the applicants is not true, it is really surprising as to why it was not traced for such a long time without being seen by any railway employees or others who might have passed through that line during that period to take necessary action. These circumstances sufficiently falsify the claim of the applicants with regards to the alleged incident. Further, even though there is evidence to the effect at the time of inquest over the dead body the ticket of the deceased was seized from his wearing apparel, in the circumstances enumerated no importance can be attached to it. It is quite believable that the ticket was planted conveniently for the purpose of the case. Everybody knows about the present state affairs in almost every field and cooking up of material objects subject to collusion among all those concerned cannot be ruled out. In the absence of any direct evidence coupled with the question of causing of long delay in tracing the dead body it sufficiently dismisses the claim of the applicants. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date. 11-02-2011. Dsh/Dvs/Sp.