IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.875 OF 2002 Between: Union of India, represented by its General Manger, South Central Railway, Secunderabad .....APPELLANT AND Shaik Anwar Basha ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.875 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 27.12.2001, in O.A.A.No.202 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was granted to the respondent herein for the death of his wife in an untoward incident. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The respondent herein filed application claiming compensation from the Railways, Secunderabad, on the death of his wife Bibi in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.523 on 18.08.2008 at Falaknuma Station. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record found that it is an accidental fall and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 4. Now the point for determination is whether the respondent is entitled for compensation? If so, whether the order of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board a running passenger train and therefore, the appellant/Railways is not liable to pay any compensation; and that there is no evidence to show that the claimant was the husband of the deceased, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. The death of the deceased Bibi is not in dispute. Though it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the appellant that while the deceased was trying to board the running passenger train, the untoward incident has taken place, at the same time, there is no other evidence to prove the same. AW.2, one of the eyewitnesses to the incident, has categorically stated that the deceased while boarding the passenger train, along with her child accidentally fell down and as a result she died. There is no contra evidence. The same has been specifically mentioned in Ex.A2 - inquest report. Therefore, there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of AW.2 and the recitals in Ex.A2 - inquest report. As a matter of fact, AW.2 was examined during inquest by the police as an eyewitness to the incident. From the evidence of AW.2, it is clear that when the deceased Bibi was boarding the passenger train at Falaknuma Station, there was a sudden jerk and as a result the deceased fell down. Therefore, it can be said to be an untoward incident. Hence, the claims Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the evidence of AW.2. There are no grounds to reject her evidence. It is not the case of the railways that the deceased was not having a valid ticket to travel. It is an admitted fact that the deceased purchased the ticket and the same was also marked. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation, and the impugned order needs no interference of this Court, as none of the findings is shown to be perverse or not based upon any evidence. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 17, 2010 MD