IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.384 OF 2006 Between: Tumarada Savitri and two others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.384 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 18-10-2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.A. No.123 of 1999 on its file filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of one Tumarada Siva (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.123 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicants are the wife and children of the deceased and the deceased along with his son in law traveled by train No.E-162 Rajahmundry - Vijayawada passenger having boarded it at Powerpet railway station at 05-50 a.m. on 22-04-1999 to go to Vijayawada holding valid train tickets. During the journey when the train reached Vatlur station, the deceased fell down and was dragged by the train over 25 sleepers as a result of which he received injuries and died on the spot. Further, he being a bona fide passenger of the train the applicants who happened to be his wife and children and as such his dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the applicants did not produce any ticket and did not take necessary measures at appropriate time and 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 applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased T. Siva? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.E-162 travelling from Powerpet to Vijayawada on 22-04-1999? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Powerpet and Vatlur railway stations? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as AW.1 and also got examined one G. Simhachalam as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest Report, Death Report and Family Members Certificate. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining three issues in favour of the respondent and against the applicants and dismissed the claim on the ground that no ticket was found with the deceased and no eye witness was examined and the evidence given by AWs.1 and 2 lack cogency and that coupled with the fact that AW.2 did not give any report to the concerned police about the accident disproves their veracity and in the inquest report no mention was made with regards to the seizure of relevant tickets. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under issue No.1 whereas, findings given under the Issues Nos.2 and 3 are in dispute. So, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether it is proved that the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the applicants are entitled to the relief as prayed for? 3) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is sustainable or not? 9. AW.1 deposed with regards to receiving information about the accident and further AW.2 deposed that he along with the deceased started the journey and they carried Rs.4,000/- in cash to make purchases at Vijayawada and they also purchased two tickets and boarded in the general compartment of the train and in his cross- examination he deposed that he kept the tickets in his bag and there was rush in the compartment and hence both of them stood near the door of the compartment holding the handle bar there and due to the sudden jerks of the train, the deceased fell down and was ran over by the train and though the other passengers made an attempt to stop the train, it was not stopped and later it was stopped at Vatluru railway station and then he went to the Station Master of Vatluru railway station who asked him to approach the railway people at Powerpet and then he went to the Powerpet railway station and found the Station Master of the railway station and disclosed him about the identity of the deceased and then went to inform the family members of the deceased about the incident. It is further his evidence that he took the bag of the deceased in which he kept the tickets and gave it to AW.1 and the tickets kept in the bag were lost or misplaced. It is further the claim of AW.2 that he neither gave the first information report to the concerned police nor he was examined as eye witness at the time of inquest over the dead body. Further, if what AW.2 deposed that the tickets were kept in a bag is true, the same tickets could have been handed over to the concerned police or at least could have been produced before the Tribunal for proving the claim. Further, if the claim of AW.2 is true, the Superintendent of the railway station would have made necessary endorsement in relevant register, the production of which could be used to prove the claim, but it seems no such steps were taken. There is also no medical evidence to the effect that the deceased received injuries having fallen from the train. Therefore there is no good basis to say that the deceased traveled as a passenger of the train and as such there is also no basis to say that he was a bona fide passenger. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. 10. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 24-02-2011. Dsh.