THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1279 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against an order made in O.A.A.No.175 of 1999 dated 20.07.2005 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereby the application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of husband of the first appellant in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.1064 on 30.04.1999, was dismissed. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is respondent in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. The applicants filed the above claim application under Section 16 of the Act r/w Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation for the death of Nagadanu Rama Murthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is the husband of the first applicant, father of applicants 2 and 3 and son of applicants 4 and 5. It was their case that the deceased purchased two train journey tickets from Yerraguntla to Guntakal on 30.04.1999, boarded train No.1064 Chennai-Dadar Express in II Class General Compartment to go to Guntakal, and while travelling, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train near North Cabin of Gooty Railway Station, came under the wheels and due to the injuries sustained died on the spot. The ticket was lost in the accident. A written statement was filed on behalf of the Railways denying the averments. In the said written statement, it was stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the enquiries revealed that one male person was ran over and killed by train No.1064 and the same was due to rash, negligent and criminal act on the part of the deceased himself, and therefore, the department of Railways is not liable to pay any compensation. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Nagadanu Rama Murthy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.1064 Chennai- Dadar Express travelling from Yerraguntla to Guntakal on 30.04.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Gooty Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” On behalf of the applicants, the first applicant examined herself as A.W.1 through her affidavit dated 22.01.2004 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. Further, the third party evidence of R.Danamaiah as A.W.2 was also let in. However, no oral or documentary evidence was let in by the Railways. Even A.Ws.1 and 2 were not cross-examined by the Railways. However, on the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal though came to the conclusion that the applicants are the family members of the deceased, and therefore, they are his dependents, dismissed the claim application holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger since he does not have ticket and that the incident was not an untoward incident of accidental fall from train. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. Admittedly, no evidence has been let in by the respondent- Railways nor A.Ws.1 and 2 were cross examined. It is unfortunate that the evidence of A.W.2- R.Danamaiah was disbelieved on the ground that under Ex.A.2-inquest report it was indicated that A.W.2 told the passengers that the deceased was trying to get down at Gooty from running train and therefore, he had fallen and died. However, he stated in his chief affidavit that while travelling the deceased and himself had snacks and went to wash basin to wash their hands. When the train was passing Gooty Railway Station, suddenly the deceased slipped and fell down from the said running train near North cabin due to sudden jerks and speed. Immediately, he tried to stop the train by pulling the alarm chain, but the train was not stopped and was passing. After the train had passed some kilometres from Gooty, he got down from it when it was going slowly, rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead by the side of railway track, as a result of injuries sustained by him due to fall from running train. He further stated that he had stated the same before the panchayatdars at the time of preparing the inquest report. Though A.W.2 was not cross-examined, the Tribunal disbelieved his evidence holding that he has changed his version. A close perusal of Ex.A.2-inquest report shows that the signature of R.Danamaiah was not available on the same. When the signature of R.Danamaiah was not available on the inquest report and when R.Danamaiah filed an affidavit in chief as A.W.2, he was not cross-examined, coming to such conclusion by the Tribunal that whatever is recorded in the inquest report must be taken as a gospel of truth, particularly, in the absence of any evidence of the patchayatdars being let in by the Railways, is not sustainable. Insofar as the fact that the deceased was travelling in Train No.1064 from Chennai - Dadar Express on 30.04.1999 along with R.Danamaiah and died in the accident is not in dispute, it cannot be said that it is unusual to lose the tickets in a case of this nature, where the deceased was dragged for some distance and by the time when R.Danamaiah reached there, the police and other railway staff were already present at the spot of death. Therefore, it must be deemed that the deceased was a bona fide purchaser. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the deceased was a bona fide purchaser travelling in Train No.1064 Chennai-Dadar Express and died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.08.2010 va