IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1076 OF 2008 Between: Doppa Nagaiah and another. --- Appellants/ Applicants. 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.1076 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short, ‘the RCT Act’) against order dated 21-06-2006, passed in O.A.A. No. 40 of 2002, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of one Doppa Narasimha Rao (Hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A No.40 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the parents of the deceased. On 02-12- 2001, the deceased went to Timmapur railway station along with his cousin Rajasekhar and the deceased purchased a general ticket to go from Timmapur to Seetaphalmandi by train No.548 Mahaboobnagar – Secunderabad passenger and boarded a compartment in that train and changed to another train at Kachiguda to go to Seetaphalmandi railway station. During the journey, the deceased fell down from the train at Jamai Osmania railway station and received injuries and died on the spot. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further contending that it was not known from which the train the deceased fell down and no eye witness was examined to prove the incident and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and pleaded 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 the dependents of the deceased Doppa Narasimha? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.548 Mahaboobnagar – Secunderabad passenger, travelling from Timmapur to Sitaphalmandi on 02-12-2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as AW.1 and one B. Rajasekhar was examined as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., inquest report, post-mortem examination report, death Certificate, original ticket and family member certificate. On behalf of the Respondent, Booking Clerk of Jamai Osmania railways station was examined as RW.1 and marked no documents. 7. The Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and held the remaining issues against the applicants on the ground that the identity of the deceased was not established and no evidence was adduced as to when the train passed through Jamai Osmani railway station while proceeding towards Secunderabad railway station and merely because a dead body was found at the end of the railway station, it could not be said that he slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries while aboarding the train and it might be that due to his own negligence, he was knocked by a train while crossing the railway lines from one side to another. 8. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether his identity was ascertained and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions in that regard and hence its order is not sustainable? 9. According to AW.1 his son came to his village Raghavapuram of Balanagar Mandal one week prior to 02-12-2001 and on the same day, he left for Hyderabad and there he went to his daughter’s house and then came to know that the deceased left her house on 02-12- 2001 to go to Raghavapuram and on 09-12-2001 some one informed on the basis of paper news that a person travelling from Timmapur to Secunderabad died and consequently enquiries were made with AW.2 who informed that on 02-12-2001 the deceased visited his house and asked him to follow him to Sitaphalmandi and on the same day, the deceased left for Timmapur to go to Sitaphalmandi. The applicants failed to produce any record with regards to the identity of the deceased. 10. It is pertinent to note here that there was long delay in between actually the deceased leaving his relatives and finding of his dead body, by which time the body might have been very much changed. Concerned railway police and the applicants should have taken necessary measures to identify the dead body. It is not known whether any belongings of the dead body were seized by the railway police on the basis of which he may be identified. Further, if the matter is dismissed on the ground of non placement of necessary evidence, injustice may be done to the applicants. Hence, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence in respect of the identification of the dead body and also to adduce further evidence which may be necessary. Hence, in the result the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date.24-02-2011. Dsh.