THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 494 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1986 is directed against an order made in OAA No. 21 of 2000 dated 30.3.2005 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents, claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of one Devireddy Ramakrishna in the railway accident on 11.1.2000, was answered in favour of the claimants. It appears, on 11.1.2000 at about 7.00 hours, deceased Devireddy Ramakrishna and his colleague Ramisetty Venkateswar Rao reached Tadepally Railway Station for the purpose of business work and purchased traveling train journey tickets for train No.401- passenger from Tadepalligudem to Nidadavolu at about 7.10 hrs. Due to heavy rush, deceased, who was traveling by the side of the door of the compartment, slipped from the compartment, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and died. The deceased was traveling with a journey ticket No.25939. Therefore, the dependents of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. The appellant-Railways contested the application by filing its counter, wherein it was stated that the journey ticket was a planted one and the deceased was traveling without any ticket and there was no report of the alleged fall from the train and the case is not covered by any untoward incident. In the alternative, it was stated, the deceased fell down on account of his own negligence and the claimants shall be put to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 2. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident as defined in Section 123- C of the I.R. Act? 3. Whether the applicants are the dependents and they are the only dependents of the deceased? 4. To what amount, if any, the applicants are entitled to as compensation? 5. To what relief? Claimant No.1 herself was examined as AW-1 and one Ramisetty Venkateswar Rao was examined as AW-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Whereas, on behalf of the Railways, passenger guard S. Ramachandra Reddy was examined as RW-1 and the affidavit of China Narasappa– Gangman was filed as RW-2 and Ex.R1 was got marked. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased fell down from the train accidentally and received severe injuries resulting in his death and that no evidence has been adduced by the respondent-Railways to show that there was any act of negligence or carelessness on the part of the deceased; that the respondent-Railways has not adduced any evidence to show that the case is covered under any exceptions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the evidence of AW-2 ought not to have been taken into consideration since there are many inconsistencies in his evidence. Firstly, he has stated that he traveled along with the deceased but he further stated that after witnessing the incident he went to Laxmi Rice Mill at Brahmangagudem near Nidadavolu and informed about the accident to his owners at Tadepalligudem through telephone and at about 2 p.m. he, along with his owners went to Nidadavolu Government Railway Police Station and informed the matter to them. The railway police then asked them to go to the scene of occurrence and accordingly they went there and saw the dead body of the deceased. Had AW-2 really witnessed the incident, he would have directly gone to the Railway Police Station and informed the matter to the concerned. Therefore, his evidence cannot be believed. Thus, the accident is not proved and the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Tribunal and contended that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that merely because there are some aberrations here and there, it cannot be said that the evidence of AW-2 cannot be believed. AW-2 was present at the time of inquest and, may be, he had intimated the rice mill owner little later and there was some delay. For this, the Tribunal itself has recorded its finding that AW-2 was in fear complex and, therefore, he might have intimated little later to the owner of the rice mill. The accident in particular train also is not denied. Though it is argued that it was the negligence of the deceased due to which he fell down, this aspect cannot be taken so seriously in a case of this nature, more particularly, when there is any amount of evidence to show that the deceased died in the railway accident and AW-2 was an eye witness to the incident and there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Railways. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 1-7-2010. MVB.