THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1050 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being aggrieved by order made in O.A.A.No.67 of 2000 dated 17.8.2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the said application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the application. The applicants filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 read with Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following death of one Shyam Rao by fall from Train No.6094 Lucknow-Chennai Express on 14.12.1999 at Sirpur Kagaznagar Railway Station, claiming to be his wife and children/legal heirs by virtue of which, they are entitled to the compensation. The claim of the applicants is that on 14.12.1999 the deceased purchased journey ticket to go to Mancherial from Kagaznagar and boarded the train, whereas he fell down from the train and received injuries and subsequently died. The respondent-Railways filed written statement claiming that the dead body was found lying on up line at KM 202/33 between Rallapet and Sirpur Kagaznagar Railway Stations and it was noticed by the Driver of Train No.2625-Kerala Express while proceeding on 14.12.1999 towards Balharsha following which, he reported the matter to the Station Superintendent, Sirpur Kagaznagar, who sent a memo about to the GRP of the same place at 17.25 hrs. and in fact no untoward incident took place as reported by the guard of the train. Further, on 17.12.1999, inquest over the body of the deceased was conducted and a journey ticket was planted with him for the benefit of the applicants. Based on the above noted pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased Shyam Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train No.6094 Express travelling from Sirpur Kagaznagar to Mancherial on 14.12.1999? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Kagaznagar Railway Station and succumbed to injuries on the next day i.e. on 15.12.1999 at 9.30 p.m. while undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital? 4. To what relilef? For the applicants, the first of them was got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A6, whereas on behalf of respondent- Railways, the guard of the Train No.6094 and Driver of the Train No.2625- Kerala Express were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and further, Ex.C1 case sheet was also marked, it shows that the deceased was admitted in hospital. Taking into consideration the material available, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the applicants as prayed for. It is the contention of the respondent-Railways that significantly no eyewitness to the incident was examined and no untoward incident was recorded by the guard of the train. Further, as per Ex.C1-case sheet of the hospital, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and absolutely there is no basis to say that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and died. Further, it is pertinent to note here that on 13.6.2006, the Judicial Member of the Tribunal allowed the application, whereas the Technical Member dismissed it and consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal allowed the application. Further, the findings given by the Chairman are not tenable and therefore the same are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that there is ample evidence to show that the deceased travelled by the Train No.6094 Lucknow-Chennai Express, and more importantly, when the inquest over the dead body was conducted, a journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased and there is no rebuttal evidence for that. It is very important that no eyewitness to the incident was examined. On the other hand, A.W.1 wife of the deceased deposed about the incident. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was not an eyewitness to the incident and that on 14.12.1999 at 3.00 p.m. her husband started from home at Sirpur Kagaznagar to go to Mancherial and on the same day at 6.00 p.m. some known persons informed her that her husband met with an accident. Ex.A2 provides that over the dead body inquest was conducted on 17.12.1999 and Ticket bearing No.30044 was seized. Further, R.W.1-Guard of the Train deposed that no passenger informed about the fall of any passenger from the Train No.6094-Lucknow Chennai Express and neither the Driver nor the Deputy Station Superintendent of Sirpur Kagaznagar informed about any fall of passenger from the train. It is significant that R.W.1 was not cross-examined and hence it cannot be considered. On the other hand, R.W.2 who was the Driver of the Train No.2625-Kerala Express deposed that he found one person coming from the left side of the Train while the Train was in motion and he noticed that the person fell down, but he had not noticed whether he had fallen under the wheels or by the side of the track and on information given by the Cabin people on the platform, he got stopped the train and verified the fall and gave memo to the Station Master of Sirpur Kagaznagar Railway Station about the same, but no such memo was filed before the Tribunal or before this court. Further, the evidence of R.W.2 is different from what is claimed in the written statement that he noticed the dead body on the way. Therefore, there is no basis to uphold the claim of R.Ws.1 and 2 and also the claim of the Railways to that effect. Further, it is also significant that Ex.A1 is a copy of F.I.R. registered by the G.R.P., Ex.A3 is the death report of the deceased. Ex.A1 provides that on information given, the case was registered. There is no rebuttal evidence as to the genuineness of the same report. Therefore, it is to be deemed that necessary information was given to the G.R.P., on the basis of which, the case was registered. Further, it appears that the inquest report was marked without raising any objection. The Tribunal should have examined mediators with regards to the seizure of ticket, whereas when no objection was raised for marking it, the same aspect need not given any importance. It is not understood as to why the inquest report and post-mortem examination reports are marked without examining the witnesses concerned with it unless consent is given. At this juncture, there is no basis to uphold the claim of the Railways that the ticket was planted with the deceased at the time of inquest over the body. Having gone through the record and the views expressed by the Chairman and the Judicial Member on one side and the Technical Member on the other side, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of the former. The C.M.A. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 20.7.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1050 of 2006 20.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1050 of 2006 Date: 20th July, 2011 Between: Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Appellant/Respondent And Smt.U.Sindu Bai & others. .. Respondents/Applicants