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.470 of 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND Jayalakshmi Bai and others --- Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.470 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 the order passed in O.A.A.No.94 of 2002 dated 20-11-2007 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 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, consequent on the death of Ravinayak, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A.No.94 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicants, are as follows: On 03-12-2000 evening while the deceasd was tavelling by train No.7429 Hydrabad-Tirupati Rayalaseema Expres with a second class ticket bearing No.20466 from Begumpt to Nawangi, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at KM 55/1-2 between Manthatti and Nawangi Railway Stations and sustained severe multiple injuries and died instantaneously. The applicants being the wife, children and mother and dependants of the deceased are entitled to necessary compensation. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that there was no untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989 and prayed to dismiss the claim. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1) Whether the applicants are sole dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether on 3-12-2000 the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? 3) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined u/s.123(c) of the Railways Act? 4) Relief and costs? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them the wife of the deceased got herself examined as A.W.1. and another witness was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no document was marked. 7. After considering the material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- directing the respondent to deposit the amount before it within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, failing which to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of the order till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A has been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that even though the corresponding ticket was marked as Ex.A.1, no eyewitness of the incident was examined and as per inquest report he fell down from some unknown train but in the application for the first time the train number was given without any basis and there is no basis to say at what time and from what train the deceased fell down and inquest over the dead body was conducted at 12.00 noon on 4.12.2000 and post mortem examination over the dead body was conducted on 05.12.2000 from 10.00 a.m whereby it was opined by concerned Doctor that the death would have occurred 24 to 40 hours prior to the examination which does not tally with the claim and the Tribunal failed to properly examine the matter and passed erroneous order and hence the order is not tenable. He has very much emphasised on one factor i.e. the evidence of R.W.1 to the effect that no untoward incident took place in this context. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that no dispute was raised about the ticket and sufficient evidence was placed before the Tribunal with regard to the accident and a fact in issue can be proved by circumstantial evidence and absolutely there is no basis to reject the evidence adduced and the claim made by the applicants and the Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. It is also his contention that it was not possible for the guard of the train to know as to what happened unless somebody informed him and simply because he deposed that no untoward incident took place on that day, the evidence and claim of the applicants cannot be dismissed when the same is trustworthy. 10. The contents of Ex.A.2-relevant inquest report coupled with the evidence of A.W.2 reveals that on 04-02-2000 at 12.00 hrs.,, the inquest over the dead body was conducted and the ticket in question was seized from the dead body. Further A.W.2 deposed that he happened to be brother-in-law of the deceased and he gave send of to the deceased who left by the train in question and subsequently he came to know about the incident after a lapse of good time. Further as per Ex.A.3-post mortem examination report and the same examination was conducted over the dead body on 05-10-2000 from 10.00 a.m. and then it was opined that the deceased would appear to have died about 24 to 40 hours prior to the examination because of the injuries noted therein. Nothing was elicited against the claim of the applicants. Further when sufficient material was placed before the Tribunal to uphold the claim of the applicants, the respondent should have taken necessary measures to examine a witness who can speak about the seizure of the ticket and other relevant particulars and for not doing so, an adverse inference is to be drawn here whereas the evidence of R.W.1 is not sufficient to reject the claim of the applicants. The tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL