THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.535 OF 2005 DATED:07-09- 2010. Between Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad. … Appellant And 1 Smt. K.Lalithamma and others …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.535 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 14-03-2005 in O.A.A No.146 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The brief facts are that, claimants who are the wife and children of Kambham Venkata Ramana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that the deceased on 06-03-2000 boarded train No.7424 Narayanadri Express at Guntur Railway Station at about 23.35 hours to go to Nellore. The train started moving from the station and after some distance, the deceased fell down accidentally from the running train in between the platform and the train and sustained serious injuries, resulting in his death. The fall was due to jerks of the train and the deceased was travelling under reserved ticket. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stating that when the train picked up its speed, a male person, aged about 50 years tried to catch the general compartment in a rash and negligent manner and fell down under the wheels, which ran over on him. The injuries sustained by the deceased was due to his own negligence and carelessness and the case is not covered under the definition of untoward incident. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased Kambham Venkata Ramana Reddy? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7424 Narayanadri express, traveling from Guntur to Nellore on 06-03-2000? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Guntur as alleged? 4.To what relief? 5. During the enquiry, the 1st claimant filed her affidavit in support of her case and got marked Exs.A1 to A.5. On behalf of Railways, affidavits of R.Ws. 1 and 2 were filed, but no documents were marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident and therefore, the Railways are liable to pay the compensation, and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and directed the Railways to pay the same within two months from the date of order, failing which, the claimants are entitled to claim interest at 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Railways contended that the deceased sustained injuries and died due to his own negligence, that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contended that the deceased sustained injuries and died in an untoward incident, that the evidence of the claimant would go to show that while the deceased was boarding the train, there was a jerk to the train as the train moved suddenly, as a result, he fell down, sustained injuries and died, that the findings of the Tribunal need not be interfered with and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Taking place of incident is not in dispute. R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the Railways to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. No doubt, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined to speak about the deceased falling down from the train, but admittedly, they are not the eyewitnesses to the incident. Their evidence is based upon the information passed by some of the passengers. Admittedly, those passengers have not been examined to show that they informed to R.Ws. 1 and 2 about the falling of the deceased from the train. Therefore, the evidence of R.Ws. 1 and 2 is hearsay, which is inadmissible under law. After proper appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and the said order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:07.09.2010 Hsd