IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4044 OF 2004 Between: N. Nagamani and five others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4044 OF 2004 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 28-07-2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in O.A.A. No.90 of 1998, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one N. Venkateswarlu (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.90 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The case of the applicants is as follows : The applicants happened to be the wife, children and parents of the deceased. On the morning of 05-05-1998 the deceased along with his cousin K. China Venkatarao and N. Veerraju visited Kanaka Durga temple at Vijayawada and later they boarded in the general compartment of the train No.471 Vijayawada – Visakhapatnam passenger for returning to their place and in fact when the train reached Dwarapudi railway station, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train during the early hours of 06- 05-1998, received injuries and died on the spot and in the process, he lost his journey ticket. Further, the deceased being a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants happened to be his wife, children and parents and as such dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas taken in the application. Further, it is the claim of its key man that he found a dead body of a male person aged about 35 years at the first platform of Dwarapudi railway station on it’s northern side and later inquest and postmortem examination were conducted over the dead body of the deceased and then the body was buried whereas, as per the inquest report, while the deceased was passing through the track, the train hit him and no ticket was seized from his body and if the claim of the applicants is true, the concerned Railway Authorities would have noticed the same, ultimately it is pleaded 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 bona fide passenger? 3) Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and also got examined one K. China Venkatarao as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R, Inquest Report, Post mortem report, Death Certificate, Legal Heir Certificate and news paper cutting. Further, on behalf of the respondent its key man V. Kondaiah was examined as RW.1 and one K. Bhushanam, Deputy Station Superintendent, DWarapudi railway station, was examined as RW.2 and got marked an extract of the Station Diary as Ex.R-1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicants holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased traveled by the train? 2) Whether the respondent proved that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train? 3) Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is sustainable or not? 9. Point No.1: It is the testimony of AW.2 that he is a close relative of the deceased and on the relevant day, younger brother of the deceased came to his house and enquired about him and informed that the deceased did not reach Samalkot on 06-05-1998 and then immediately he along with the younger brother of the deceased went to the house of the deceased and informed the family members of the deceased about the journey along with the deceased and subsequently, they came to know about the incident. Further, he deposed in his cross-examination that on 09-05-1998 during morning time their Village Sarpanch called him and informed about the deceased and he also deposed that he did not go to see the dead body after coming to know about the incident because of death of his buffalo. According to AW.2, he was one of the persons who accompanied the deceased up to Rajahmundry whereas the accident took place after the train left Rajahmundry and at Dwarapudi railway station. As per Ex.A-5 inquest report, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on the same day between 15-00 to 20- 00 hours in the presence of mediators and found that the deceased was having a head injury on his right side, abrasions on his knees and lacerations on the right side of his cheek and he was only wearing lungi, drawer and a shirt and no articles were seized from his dead body and then it was concluded that the deceased might have died on account of fall from some unknown train and sustained injuries and died and there were no eye witnesses to the incident. 10. On the other hand, RW.1 deposed that there was no such untoward incident and a male dead body was found at 10-00 a.m. and number of trains stopped after passing train No.471 till the recovery of the dead body on the platform. 11. There was long gap between what the said relatives of the deceased made necessary efforts to trace out the deceased and the actual date of the accident. It is pertinent to note here that according to the respondent, inquest and postmortem examinations were conducted over the dead body and then it was buried before the relatives of the deceased approached them. If AW.2 and others in fact accompanied the deceased or the deceased was not seen by his blood relatives, their natural conduct would have been to take necessary measures without any delay, whereas the circumstances of the case provide that no such pleas were taken. It is also important that according to RW.1 and relevant records of the Railways, no untoward incident took place on the concerned day. Even though it is opined in the inquest report that he might have fallen down from some train, it is not a conclusive proof and it may be imaginary which can not substantiate the claim of the applicants. Therefore, absolutely there is no basis to say that the deceased traveled by the train. 12. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that when the circumstances of the case amply prove that the deceased traveled by the train, it is for the respondent to establish that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following two decisions reported in Union of India Vs. Baburao Koddekar and another[1] in which it was observed that as the deceased passengers were possessing valid tickets they would be considered as bona fide passengers of the trains concerned and another decision reported in Union of India Vs. Borra Vijayalakshmi[2] in which it was observed that the Railways had to establish that the person who traveled by the train without holding a valid ticket not to be a bona fide passenger of the train and so on. These two decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case when it is not established that the deceased traveled by any train. The Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions 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 Dated: 03-03-2011. Dsh. [1] AIR 2003 AP 23 [2] 2005 ALT 2-86 & 2005 ALD 2-79