THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY REVIEW M.P. No.2406 of 2011 in CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.408 of 2006 05.12.2012 Between: Nuttu Appalamma and six others … Appellants/ Applicants AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. … Respondent/ Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY REVIEW M.P. No.2406 of 2011 in CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.408 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed appellants to review the judgment dated 24.2.2011 in CMA No.208 of 2006. 2. Whereas the petitioners herein are appellants, the respondent herein is also the respondent in O.A.A No.228 of 2000. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the wife and children of the deceased who happened to be a rickshaw puller. On 07-10-2000 the deceased aboarded in second class compartment of Train No.425 Vijayawada – Visakhapatnam passenger holding general ticket bearing No.74498 at Kadiam and while he was travelling in the train he fell down from the train between Rajahmundry and Kadiam and died on the spot. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the application was filed. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further contending that it could not be believed that the dead body was not traced between 07-10-2000 to 10-10-2000 when several trains would have passed through the said railway track and no eye witness was examined to prove the incident and therefore it could be inferred that the ticket was planted at the instance of the applicants to get necessary benefits. Ultimately the respondent 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 Nuttu Prakasam @ Prakasa Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.425 Vijayawada – Visakhapatnam passenger, travelling from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam on 07-10-2000? 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 examined herself as AW.1 and the one of them got examined as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the Respondent, none were examined. 7. Taking into consideration the material available on record the Tribunal allowed the claim of the applicants and directed the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which to pay 6% interest on the amount from the date it would fall due. Hence the present appeal has been preferred. 8. The CMA was dismissed on the ground that no eye witness to the incident was examined and the dead body was traced 3 days after the alleged accident and as per the inquest report only a copy of the ticket was traced and no explanation was given as to what happened to the original ticket. Further, if the claim of the applicants is true, concerned Railway staff would have traced the dead body without delay and taken necessary measures. Hence, the claim of the applicants is not believable. 9. In this review petition, it is the contention of the counsel for the applicants that as per the inquest report in fact the original ticket was seized from the diseased whereas in the CMA it was observed that only a copy of the ticket was traced and no explanation was given about the original ticket. In fact it was also observed that the dead body was traced as per the claim of the applicants after three days of the accident but if the claim of the applicants was true, concerned Railway staff could have traced the dead body without delay. 10. Therefore it is to be seen as to whether there are any grounds to order the review petition. Now the relevant inquest report is perused. 11. What is important is as per the inquest report the original ticket was seized from the wearing apparel of the diseased. This strongly indicate that he actually traveled in the train in question. In view of this, the fact that the dead body was traced after three days need not be taken seriously. On the other hand, it can be taken only that after 3 days the dead body was traced. 12. On behalf of the Railways no satisfactory evidence was placed to refuse the claim of the petitioner. Tribunal properly examined the matter and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and consequently the judgment passed in the CMA is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the review petition is allowed and the judgment 24.2.2011 passed in CMA No.408 of 2006 is set aside confirming the order passed by the Tribunal in which granted the relief as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) December 05, 2012. YS