THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1656 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2004 passed in O.A.A. No. 238 of 2000 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants herein, claiming compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs on account of death of one Dubagunta Venkata Ramanadha Rao, in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train on 21.09.2000. The appellants herein, claiming to be the legal representatives of late Dubagunta Venkata Ramanadha Rao, filed the aforesaid O.A.A. before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, stating that, on 21.09.2000, the deceased namely Dubagunta Venkata Ramanadha Rao, along with his son-in-law V.V. Sudhakara Rao, was traveling in train No. 474 Kakinada-Tirupathi passenger, as a bona fide passenger, from Kavali, to go to Gudur, and while so, after crossing Manubolu Railway Station, at midnight, the deceased told his son-in- law that he was going to toilet, but he accidentally fell down from the train due to jerks and came under the train and died. The appellants thus claimed a compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs from the Railways, on account of death of the deceased in the said untoward incident. The respondent railways resisted the claim of the appellants by filing written statement mainly contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, which amounts to self-inflicted injury, and thus the appellants are not entitled to any compensation. On behalf of the appellants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, disbelieved the case of the appellants that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, and accordingly dismissed the claim application of the appellants. Assailing the said dismissal order, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellants, reiterated the case of the appellants, as argued by them before the Tribunal, stating that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, and submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in dismissing the claim application of the appellants. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent railways supported the order under appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent railways and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the widow of the deceased was examined as A.W.1., and who admittedly, is not an eye- witness to the incident, deposed that on the fateful day, the deceased and their son-in-law, who was examined as A.W.2, were returning to Gudur from Kavali, and her son-in-law came home at night and enquired about the deceased and then she told him that the deceased did not return home, and on the next day they searched and found the dead body of the deceased. This evidence of A.W.1 does not help the appellants to prove their case that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died on account of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. The son-in-law of the deceased, who claims to have traveled along with the deceased, was examined as A.W.2. He deposed that, after the train passed Manubolu Railway Station, the deceased went to lavatory, but did not return, and five minutes thereafter, the train reached Gudur Railway Station and he got down and searched for the deceased, but could not find him. He thought that the deceased might have gone to his house and, therefore, after handing over both the tickets to the Ticket Collector at Gudur Railway Station, he went to the house of the deceased, and came to know that the deceased did not reach his house, and thereafter, he left to his house, and on the next day, reported the matter to the railway authorities. The above evidence of A.W.2 appears to be quite suspicious. It is quite unnatural that A.W.2, who traveled along with the deceased, would leave the railway station under the impression that the deceased might have left home, and even after coming to know that the deceased did not reach home, would go to his house, without lodging any complaint with the railways, and instead go and lodge complaint before the railway authorities in the morning of the next day. This apart, according to A.W.2, the train reached Gudur Railway Station five minutes after the deceased went to lavatory, and that he got down the train at Gudur Railway Station and searched for the deceased, but could not find him. If really the deceased died by falling from the train, either on the way to Gudur or at Gudur Railway Station, certainly the people standing at the door to alight the train would have noticed the deceased falling from the train, but no such incident of any person falling from the running train or at the railway station, was reported by any of the persons, who traveled in the train or stood on the platform. That being so, the plea of the appellants-claimants that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the train cannot be accepted. Further, the inquest report conducted by the police discloses that the deceased was carrying some eatables and that he had no penny in his pocket and this would suggest that he was not a passenger and that he did not die in the accident by falling from the train, so as to treat him as a bona fide passenger, justifying the appellants-claimants to claim compensation on account of his death from the Railways. Considering the circumstances, as noted above, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no evidence, much less convincing and corroborating evidence, placed by the appellants-claimants to show that the deceased was traveling in the train as a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the appellants-claimants. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 27th January, 2011 IBL