THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3173 of 2002 JUDGMENT: O.A.A.No.128 of 1999 is filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, claiming compensation, on account of the death of Kanapala Siromani, the wife of the 1st appellant and mother of appellants 2 to 5. It was pleaded that, on 08.04.1999, Siromani went to Krishna Canal railway station, with a view to go to Vijayawada, purchased a ticket and boarded train No.160, Ongole- Vijayawada Passenger, in general compartment, when she was standing near the door holding the bar, she fell down, on account of sudden jerk and movement of the train, on the platform, sustained head injury; and died while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Vijayawada. It was stated that the death occurred in an untoward incident. The respondent filed a written statement, denying the allegations. It is stated that the enquiries made by them revealed that a lady of 45 years was hit by train No.160 passenger, when she was trying to cross road No.3 and on the information furnished by the gang-man at the station, FIR was registered and the allegations to the contrary are without basis. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, through order, dated 23.04.2002. Hence, this appeal. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that though there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence, in the inquest, it was clearly mentioned that the death occurred in an untoward incident. He pleads that the version put forward by the respondent is unbelievable and not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there are number of contradictions between the inquest report and the petition filed by the appellants. He submits that the FIR itself was registered, on an information furnished by the Railway officials to the effect that an unknown woman was hit by the train, when she was attempting to cross the road. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration and dismissed the O.A. 1. “Whether the applicants proved that they are the only dependants of late Kanapala Siromani? 2. Whether the applicants further proved that late Kanapala Siromani was a bona fide passenger traveled by train No.160 Ongole-Vijayawada passenger on 08.04.1999? 3. Whether the applicants further proved that Kanapala Siromani became the victim of an untoward incident and died in the manner narrated at para 6 of the claim petition? 4. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to?” According to the appellants, the deceased died, when she has fallen from a train. The respondent, on the other hand, stated that the deceased was hit by a train, when she was crossing the road. There is no eye-witness for the occurrence. The appellants placed heavy reliance upon the inquest. It is to the effect that the deceased has purchased a ticket in the Krishna Canal railway station for proceeding to Vijayawada, she boarded the train. She is said to have fallen, on account of heavy rush in the general compartment. In the claim petition, it was not mentioned that the 3rd appellant, one of the sons of the deceased, had accompanied her. This, however, is stated in the inquest report. It is rather curious to note from the inquest report that the 3rd appellant is said to have seen his mother in seriously injured condition and left for home by leaving her in the platform. It is just unbelievable that a son would leave his seriously injured mother at the platform and go home. Further he has not chosen to enter the witness box. Therefore, two facts, namely, non-mention of the presence of the 3rd appellant at the time of accident and failure to examine him as witness, would belie the contents of the inquest report. Another circumstance, which goes against the appellants, is that when the deceased was found in injured condition, there was none accompanying her. Therefore, in the FIR, it was mentioned that an unknown lady aged 40 years suffered injuries, when she was attempting to cross road No.3. Reference was made to the information given by eye-witnesses. The FIR was prepared on the basis of the information furnished by a gang-man and his statement was also recorded. He boarded that very train in the same station. Nothing was elicited from him to the contrary. The Tribunal has taken into account, the various aspects and dismissed the O.A. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:26.08.2010 GJ