IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.11-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.928 OF 2006 Between: J. Narasimha. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.928 OF 2006 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the RCT Act’) assailing order dated 09-11-2005 passed in O.A.A. No.22 of 1995, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of J. Narender, son of the Appellants (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties hereinafter as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicant is as follows : He was father of the deceased. On 28-06-1995 the deceased while traveling from R.K. Puram to Bollaram railway station by train No.S.B.II Push pull local train, accidentally slipped and fell down at Ammuguda railway station due to sudden jerks of the train and then the train ran over him and the body was cut into two pieces and therefore he was a bona fide passenger of the train, but in the process of accident his train ticket was lost. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the pleas taken by the applicant. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the application is maintainable? 2. Whether the applicant is a dependent of the deceased? 3. Whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger? 4. Whether the deceased fell down from a running train and died as a result of such untoward incident? 5. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, she got herself examined as AW.1 and also got examined two other witnesses as AWs 2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 which are relevant Death Report, and copies of F.I.R. and Inquest Report. Further, on behalf of the respondent, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and a Gang Man was examined as RW.2 and got marked no documents on their behalf. 7. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim while holding the second issue in favour of the applicant and the remaining issues in favour of the respondent. Hence, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether : 1. Sufficient evidence was placed before the Tribunal to the effect that the deceased traveled by the train and he was a bona fide passenger/not a bona fide passenger of the train? 2. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at a correct conclusion and whether its order is sustainable or not? 9. It is the testimony of AW-2, class mate of the deceased that he went to the railway station along with the deceased and saw the deceased aboarding the train at R.K. Puram railway station for his journey up to Bollaram and thereafter he went away to his house at Neredmet. It is also in his evidence that their school was closed at 02- 00 p.m. and the deceased went home for food before going to the railway station. Therefore, when the school was closed at 02-00 p.m. itself it is something unbelievable that AW-2 accompanied the deceased up to his house and also to the railways station later on for the said purpose. Further, there is no record about the involvement of AW.2 in the said circumstances. Therefore, it appears that he was only planted as witness for the purpose of this case. 10. The evidence of AW.3 is to the effect that some passengers informed about the accident, it is only hearsay and therefore her evidence is not sufficient to come to any conclusion in the matter. 11. Further, as per Ex.A-2 F.I.R. copy Gang Man working at Ammuguda railway station reported to the Station Manager of the railway station that 13 years boy was ran over by S.B.II Push pull local train and the body was lying near the railway track and further RW.1 deposed that on receiving information he went and saw the dead body which was cut into two pieces lying over the track. Further, as per Ex.A-3 inquest report copy, inquest was held at 05-00 p.m. on 28-06- 1995 within a few hours of the incident and then it was opined that the death might have occurred because of fall from a train but it does not show that any eye witness was examined at the time of inquest. The Inquest report is admissible as far as the question of nature of injuries is concerned and also the death of the deceased is concerned. Further, it is important that the inquest report does not speak that corresponding ticket was seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased person. 12. Therefore, absolutely no acceptable evidence is there to the effect that the deceased aboarded the train and during his journey fell down from the train and received injuries and died on the spot. Taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances including the evidence of RWs. 1 and 2 to the effect that the dead body was found at the place of accident and also the fact that the body was cut into two pieces, it appears that he was ran over by the train otherwise and so on. 13. Therefore, there is no basis to say that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. The question as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not can be decided basing upon the over all circumstances of the case including the evidence recorded on behalf of the respondent. 14. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date:11-03- 2011. DSH