IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 25-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.457 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Kotha Bhadrakali @ Ammaji and three others. --- Respondents/ Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.457 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) is directed by the Railways against order dated 17-01-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.123 of 2000, filed Under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, the application filed by applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one K. Padmarao (Hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.123 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : The applicants happened to be the wife and children of the deceased, on 07-03-2000 at 11-30 p.m. the deceased was run over by Falaknuma express at Tadepalligudem railway station and then he was a bona fide passenger of the train having valid ticket and hence the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the claims of the applicants totally and further claiming that everything was manipulated for the benefit of the applicants and the Guard of the train reported that no untoward incident took place when it reached Tadepalligudem railway station on the relevant date and in fact the deceased made an attempt to jump out of the train while the train was moving as per the relevant inquest report and hence the applicants would not be entitled to the compensation. 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 Kotha Padmarao? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2704 Secunderabad – Howrah Falaknuma express travelling from secunderabad to Tadepalligudem on 07-03-2000? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Tadepalligudem while getting down from the train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and also examined one K. Subba Rao, eye witness to the incident as AW.2. Further, on behalf of the respondent, the Chief Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 but marked no documents on its behalf. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and granted the relief as prayed for apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- to the first applicant and Rs.1,00,000/- each to the third and fourth applicants directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order otherwise, to pay interest at 6% p.a. on that amount from the date it would fall due. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent-Railways. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue. AW.1 deposed about the circumstances said to have taken place prior to the accident. Further, AW.2 who is brother of the deceased deposed that he was a co-passenger of the train and he kept the journey tickets of himself and deceased in his bag but the same could not be traced and he was examined at the time of inquest over the dead body at 08-00 p.m. on 08-03-2000. It is the evidence of RW.1 that the train arrived at Tadepalligudem railway station at 23-33 hours and left the railways station at 23-34 hours, after necessary formalities were observed and as a part of his duty he made observations at the platform then but he did not find anybody falling from the train there and there was no pulling of the chain of the train and no other person including the driver or other railway staff informed about any untoward incident. His evidence makes it clear that there was no such untoward incident on that day. 9. The Tribunal observed that AW.2 being brother and co- passenger of the deceased would have given trustworthy evidence and having witnessed the tragic incident he must have been shocked and therefore there was every possibility of misplacement of their tickets and when he was on the platform on the fateful night, concerned checking staff would have booked him as ticket less traveler unless he was satisfied of his journey. Both AWs. 1 and 2 happened to be persons of status and their evidence should be believed and further the Railways failed to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants and merely because the Guard could not see or anybody did not inform about the incident, no adverse inference need be drawn against the applicants and in the inquest report clear findings were given to the effect that the deceased slipped and fell down from the train accidentally and his body was cut into two pieces and the same findings could be accepted and so on. About the evidence of AW.2 it is important that he was examined at the time of inquest over the dead body by concerned police. 10. Further, Ex.A6 which is news paper clipping provides that on the relevant date one person namely K. Padmarao, a native of Hyderabad while trying to aboard Falaknuma express train fell down from the train and then the train ran over him as informed by Railway in-charge Sub-Inspector G. Chinna Rao. Further Ex.A-7 which is photos also provides that some train ran over him and therefore his body was cut into pieces. In the light of Exs.A-6 and A-7, it is difficult to accept the evidence of RW.1 that no such untoward incident took place at the railway platform on the relevant date. By virtue of a full bench decision of this Court reported in UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD Vs. KURUKUNDU BALAKRISHNAIAH, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1], such victims would come within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, leaving apart the exceptions provided therein. Therefore, the claim of the applicants is proved. The respondent failed to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. 11. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the deceased proved to be a bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions by granting compensation to the applicants and there are no reasons 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:25-02-2011. Dsh. [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B.)