THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.503 of 2005 JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsel on record. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act against the order dated 09.03.2005 made in O.A.A.No.51 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 3. Sri T.S.Venkataramana, the learned counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal has to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Sri K.S.N.Murthy, the learned counsel representing the respondents would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons, which had been recorded by the learned Tribunal, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal_:- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad is to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 6. POINT NO:1- The parties hereinafter for the purpose of convenience would be referred to as shown in O.A.A.No.51 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter in short referred to as “The Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 7. This application is filed by the applicants for compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of their son viz; Potnuru Govindarao (hereinafter in short referred to as “the deceased” for the purpose of convenience). It is alleged in the application that the deceased Potnuru Govindarao, accompanied by his friends P. Sairaju and B. Hutakesam and some others went to Tirupati two days prior to the incident to have darshan of Lord Venkateswara Swamy. After having darshan, while returning on 21.02.1999, they all went to Tirupati railway station and purchased train journey ticket from Tirupati to Visakhapatnam and boarded train No.7487 Tirupati-Visakhapatnam Tirumala Express, in II Class general compartment. While traveling, the deceased-P. Govindarao, slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train between Bhimadolu and Pulla Railway Stations at Km.No.511/27 during the early hours of 22.02.1999, as a result, he sustained severe multiple injuries resulting in his instantaneous death. 8. The respondent-Railways contested the matter denying the allegations. Although it is admitted that one male dead body of aged 20 years was found run over at Km 511/25-27 between Bhimadolu and Pulla stations, but it is denied that the deceased was traveling in the said train with a valid ticket and he fell down from the said train as alleged by the applicants. In the alternative, it is also contended that the fall off the deceased was due to his own negligence and carelessness and, therefore, the injuries sustained by the deceased were self-inflicted injuries. 9. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the applicant proves that he is the only dependent of the deceased? (2) Whether the applicant further proves that the deceased P.Govinda Rao was a bonafide passenger traveled by Train No.7487 Express on 21.02.1999? (3) Whether the applicants further proves that the deceased P. Govinda Rao became victim of an untoward incident and died in the manner as narrated in para 6 of the claim petition? (4) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? 10. The first applicant in support of his case, had filed his own affidavit as A.W.1 and further filed the affidavit of A.W.2 also, who is said to be the eye witness to the incident. Ex.A.1 is the inquest report. Ex.A.2 is the postmortem report. Ex.A.3 is the Government Railway Police Certificate. Ex.A.4 is the death report. Ex.A.5 is the death certificate. Ex.A.6 is the legal heir certificate and Ex.A.7 is the First Information Report. 11. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined. He deposed that he was working as Gangman; that on 22.02.1999 at about 06.45 hrs he noticed a dead body lying at Km No.511/25-27; that the dead body was of a male person aged 20 years lying between up and down lines. He stated that he did not notice any person falling from the train. He conveyed the message to the Station Superintendent, Pulla Railway Station. 12. The learned Tribunal summoned the original documents from the Mandal Revenue Officer, which are marked as Ex.C1-First Information Report, Ex.C.2-Inquest Report and Ex.C.3-mmeo of the Station Superintendent. The evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 is clear and categorical. 13. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded reasons in detail commencing from paragraphs 8 to 18 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to compensation. The learned Tribunal in fact, had referred to the decisions of this Court and recorded convincing reasons even on the aspect of burden of proof. 14. In the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no legal infirmity warranting interference with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 15. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: 08.07.2010 bud