IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.129 OF 2007 Date:25-02-2011 Between:- Smt. Malkhed Ramalingamma and others .. Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, rep by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Tribunal Act”) against order dated 23-11-2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.A.No.249 of 2002 filed under Section 16 of the Tribunal Act read with Sections 124- A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Jagannadha Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicants are the mother, younger brother and wife of the deceased. On 06-05-2002 after 8.00 p.m., four persons including the deceased and third applicant boarded train No.6530 Udyan Express at Bangalore holding valid tickets and the deceased fell down in between Anantapur and Jangalapalli railway stations on 07-05-2002 and received injuries and died, and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Further, he being a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants happened to be his dependants, the latter are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that no untoward incident took place and ultimately pleading 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 dependants of the deceased Malkhed Jagannadha Reddy? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Udyan Express travelling from Bangalore to Yadgir on the intervening night of 6/7-5-2002? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Ananthapur and Jangalapalli railway stations? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the third applicant was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-5, which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R, Inquest Report and Postmortem Report, family member report and final report. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that as per the evidence of A.W.1, wife of the deceased, her mother and sister travelled by ladies general coach and the deceased travelled by a male general coach in Udyan Express i.e., Train No.6530 and on the way at Dharmavaram, the deceased got down from the train and purchased some food items and handed over the same to them and later, they did not notice the deceased and they got down nearby Yadagiri Railway Station at 7.30 a.m. on 07-05-2002 and they waited for the deceased but he did not turn up and they also waited till evening and as still the deceased did not turn up, on the next day, i.e., on 08-05-2002, at 8 p.m., they reached Anantapur railway station and by that time, the inquest and post mortem examination of the dead body were conducted and the dead body was also buried and further, the concerned police showed them photographs and they identified the deceased on that basis and further at the time of inquest of the dead body, the ticket bearing No.05143216 was seized and then, it was opined that he fell down from Hampi Express train No.6592 and received injuries and died and as per Ex.A-5-final report, the applicants identified the deceased on the basis of relevant photos, clothes of the deceased etc and there was no eye witness of the incident and therefore, the discrepancy regarding the train need not be taken seriously and further originally, the applicants 1 and 2 only filed the application and then it was noted that the deceased travelled along with three others and hence, the name of the third applicant was not mentioned in the application and therefore, simply because it is not mentioned in the application that the third applicant also travelled along with the deceased and two others, the same need not be given importance. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the discrepancy noted in the application of not mentioning the name of the third applicant and also the discrepancy noted in the inquest report with regards to by which train the deceased travelled and non filing of the tickets of the so called other passengers are fatal to the case and the Tribunal rightly held the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether sufficient evidence was placed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and its order is sustainable under law. 10. A fact can be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. It is significant to note here that admittedly, there are no eye witness to the incident and the evidence of A.W.1 is to the effect that she, her mother and sister travelled along with the deceased whereas she and her mother travelled by a female coach and the deceased travelled by a male coach in Udayan Express and on the way at Dharmavaram, the deceased got down from the train and purchased some food items and handed over them and left them and later, he was not seen by them and so on. It is also important that the F.I.R. was registered at 11.45 a.m. on 07-05-2002 and in between 3 to 5 p.m., on the same day, the inquest over the dead body was conducted and the ticket in question was seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased. There is no basis to disprove that the ticket was seized at the time of inquest over the dead body. Further, by virtue of law, A.W.1 and other passengers were expected to hand over their tickets to concerned railway ticket Collector while leaving Yadagiri Railway station and simply because those tickets are not produced, the same need not be taken seriously and further, at the time of inquest over the dead body, when no eye witnesses was examined, it was not possible for the concerned mediators to come to a conclusion as to by what train the deceased travelled and may be by imagination, such discrepancy was made in the report, which discrepancy, therefore, need not be given importance. 11. The circumstances of the case uphold the claim of the applicants. Further no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent to disbelieve the claim of the applicants which draws a negative inference. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is not tenable. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the application is allowed granting the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Further, with reference to the apportionment of the amounts, the second applicant would not be depending upon the deceased whereas the applicants 1 and 3 would be depending upon him being mother and wife and considering their relationship with the deceased, they are apportioned Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. The applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of decree and at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________​_____ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 25th February, 2011 AMD