IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1593 OF 2004 Between: Boya Nagaraju ..... Appellant AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, at Secunderabad. ..... Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1593 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’), is directed against the order, dated 19.03.2004, in O.A.A.No.91 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim of the applicant was dismissed on the ground that the deceased, who is the father of the applicant, was not a bona fide passenger and that the original Inquest Report which has been sent to the Mandal Revenue Officer has not been produced. 2. The claim petition is filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of his father Boya Narsanna in an alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from an unknown train carrying passenger, between Kosigi and Kuppugal railway stations on 24.12.1998 while travelling from Mantralayam to Adoni. The deceased was possessing express journey ticket No.98961. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The applicant, during the course of enquiry, filed Ex.A-1-Original Ticket issued by the Railway authorities, Mantralayam, which was possessed by the deceased and it discloses the Ticket Number as 19686. If the ticket is seen in one way, it can also be noticed as 98961. Admittedly, the said ticket was issued to travel from express train passing through Mantralayam from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 24.12.1998. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence after perusing Ex.A-1-Original Ticket. So, the number of Ex.A-1- Ticket was misread by the trial Court as 98961 and came to the conclusion that the ticket bearing No.98961 was not issued on 24.12.1998. The factum of holding a ticket by the deceased was clearly mentioned in Ex.A-3-Inquest Report which was conducted by the Police in the presence of mediators. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during inquest are admissible under law. 5. The trial Court has not placed any reliance on Ex.A-3-attested copy of the Inquest Report as the Investigating Officer who held inquest on the dead body of the deceased was not examined. In such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the applicant to summon the Sub- Inspector who held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. If the deceased is said to be the passenger travelling in an express train with a valid ticket, then the legal heirs are entitled to claim the compensation in terms of the Act. Therefore, for mere technicalities, the compensation amount, if otherwise eligible by the dependents or legal representatives, cannot be denied. For that purpose, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the applicant to adduce necessary evidence with reference to Ex.A-3-Inquest Report when it entertained a doubt with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the holding of inquest. 6. Hence, the impugned order, dated 19.03.2004, in O.A.A.No.91 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a liberty to the applicant to produce such evidence as is necessary for adjudication of the dispute. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed without costs. However, if any award that may be passed, the appellant/applicant is not entitled for interest from the date of dismissal of claim petition till the date of passing of the award, if any. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 7th March, 2011 KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1593 OF 2004 Date: 7th March, 2011 KL