THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1218 of 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order made in O.A.A.No.361 of 2002 dated 19.9.2005 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by claimants- respondents was allowed and the Appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs in all. Appellant is respondent and respondents are claimants. It was the case of the respondents that on 9.10.2002 the deceased Syed Bazi, while traveling by Train No.5222 Gorakhpur Express from Mancherial to Vijayawada, holding valid journey ticket bearing No.36279188, accidentally fell down from the running train at Gundratimadugu Railway Station and sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs as the accident was an untoward incident. The Appellant- Railway resisted the said claim and stated that the inquiries with the Station Manager, Dornakal junction revealed that on 9.10.2002 one male dead body was lying by the side of DN loop line at KM 448/24-26 at G.U.U. yard near DN HP Starter. The dead body was aged 30 years. There was no train halt at Gundratimadugu and the halt was only at Khammam and the facts and circumstances indicate that it is a case of suicide or attempted suicide or self inflicted injury attracting Section 124-A of Railways Act. The Train Guard reported no untoward incident of the Train in question. Inquest report was disputed, as there was a different version of G.Yadagiri, Driver of VM Goods Train and the message of Station Superintendent, Gundratimadugu dated 9.10.2002. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased Syed Bazi ? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train No.5222 Gorakhpur Express traveling from Mancherial to Vijayawada on 9.10.2002 ? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Gundratimadugu Railway Station ? 4. To what relief ? After examination of the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the respondents are the dependants of deceased Syed Bazi, and the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.5222 Gorakhpur Express traveling from Mancherial to Vijayawada on 9.10.2002 and fell down from Train at KM No.448/24-26 at DN Loop line at starter point, due to which he sustained injuries and died and that the death of the deceased was on account of accident fall and an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs, in all, to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. is filed. The learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that the Guard of Train No.5222 Gorakhpur Express reported that the train left Warangal at 14.05 hours and arrived Vijayawada at 17.45 hours and no incident of accidental fall was noticed by him and there was no eye witness to say that the deceased fell down from the Train on 9.10.2002 at Gundratimadugu Railway Station. Therefore, the findings arrived by the Tribunal are arbitrary and illegal and in fact, there was no halt at Gundratimadugu Railway Station and the halt was only at Khammam after a distance of 35 KM. Therefore, the accident appears to be a suicide or self inflicted injury. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents- claimants supported the order passed by the Tribunal and stated that there is any amount of evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased died in an untoward incident. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. According to the learned counsel for appellant, the very accident was not an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act. However, the findings recorded against Issue Nos.1 and 2 were not much disputed. Therefore, the only issue that arises for consideration is Issue No.3 – “Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Gundratimadugu Railway Station ?”. On Issue No.3, the Tribunal below gave its findings, which reads as under: “Ex.A1 Memo sent by the Station Superintendent, Gunratimadugu dated 9.10.2002 in which it is noted that RW1 the Assistant Driver of the Goods Train informed about the falling of the person from express train No.5222 on 9.10.2002 and the person was found dead near station signal. As against the earlier version, by examining RW1 his earliest version is twisted. However the earliest version as in Ex.A1, which is Railways own document should prevail. There was no necessity for the deceased to go all the distance from his native place to the scene of accident for committing suicide. From the evidence on record it is very clear that the deceased was on journey on the fateful day i.e. 9.10.2002 by the train in question and during his journey he had a mishap which could not be seen by any person. Even if any co-passenger had witnessed the incident he will not come forward to disclose it unless the passenger had acquaintance with the deceased. Where there is no direct evidenced, the circumstantial evidence can be safely relied. Ex.A4 Inquest report can be relied as it was prepared during investigation with regard to the death of the deceased. Under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the Investigation Officer has to submit the report whether the death of the person was on account of suicide or otherwise. The police recorded the statement of the witnesses including that of RW1 and came to the conclusion that the deceased fell down from Train No.5222 Express at KM No.448/24-26 at DN loop line at starter point and the head was hit to the signal rod as a result of which he sustained injuries which resulted in his death. The evidence on record is convincing and satisfactory to hold that the death of deceased was on account of accident fall and an untoward incident. Hence positive findings are in favour of the applicants”. From the above, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was not on account of accidental fall and therefore, it cannot be said that it is not an untoward incident. There is not even an iota of doubt to say that the incident was not an untoward incident. It is an untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the respondents-claimants are entitled for compensation as ordered by the Tribunal below. The C.M.A. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 8.7.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1218 of 2005 8.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1218 of 2005 Date: 8th July, 2010 Between: Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. .. Appellant And Syed Qasim Bee and others. .. Respondents