IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.04-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.813 OF 2006 Between: Sangadi Seshamma and four others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND Union of 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. 813 OF 2006 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987(for short, ‘the RCT Act’) against order dated 05-06-2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.A. No.286 of 2000 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of one Sangadi Bhairava Swamy (Hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.286 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The applicants happened to be the wife and children of the deceased. ON 24-10-2000 the deceased along with friends went to Vijayawada to attend a Court case and on 25-10-2000 he purchased a return journey ticket and aboarded in the general compartment of train No.431 Vijayawada – Kakinda Fast Passenger and at 04-15 p.m. and when the train started he fell down from the train due to the jerks of the train and sustained injuries. On the advise of Ticket Collector, he was shifted to University Government Genral Hospital, Vijayawada by his friends who were with him and later he was taken and admitted in Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 30-10-2000 at 04-35 p.m. Further, the journey ticket was surrendered at the booking counter at Vijayawada. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train, the applicants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed his written statement totally denying the claims of the applicants with regards to the journey of the deceased and further claimed that the Station Superintendent of Vijayawada railway station gave report dated 08-03-2001 to the effect that there was no such untoward incident at 05-05 p.m. on 25-10-2000 at the second platform of the railway station. 5. On the strength of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Sangadi Bhairava Swamy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger for train No.431 Vijayawada – Kakinada Fast Passenger traveling from Vijayawada to Godavari on 25-10-2000? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and succumbed to injuries on 30-10-2000 at Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada while undergoing treatment? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined AW.1 and also got examined one co-passenger as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be relecant copies of F.I.R., Inquest report, Postmortem examination report, death certificate and legal heir certificate issued by the concerned M.R.O.. Further, on behalf of the respondent, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and rough journal of the train was marked as Ex.R- 1. 7. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining issues inf avour of the respondent and dismissed the claim of the applicants. Hence, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered as to : 1) Whether sufficient evidence was adduced with regards to the effect that the deceased traveled by the train/whether the railways proved that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train in case it is established that he traveled by the train? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and its order is sustainable or not? 9. Point No.1: The evidence of AW.1 is as to what happened prior to the incident. It is the testimony of AW.2 that out of 10 numbers in their group 5 of them aboarded the train whereas the deceased was the 5th among them and in fact while trying to enter into the compartment, the deceased due to the jerks of the train fell down and received injuries and then the train was stopped by them and later the deceased was shifted to a Hospital. Further, one ticket number was noted on a piece of paper and further refund of the fare of three tickets was done. But at the time of inquest (Ex.A-2) he was not examined as a witness. There is no basis to say that he gave information about the accident to the railway authorities. So his evidence is not acceptable. 10. According to RW.1 no such untoward incident took place and further as per Ex.R-1 also no such entries were made therein. There is no need for him to give false evidence. 11. Further, as per Ex.A-1 F.I.R., the case was registered on 30- 10-2000 i.e., 5 days after the incident, on the basis of death intimation received from Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada at 10-00 p.m. by the Sub-inspector of Police G.R.P. Vijayawada, it does not speak about the incident which in fact is sufficient to disprove the claim. It is unbelievable that no information was given to the railway authorities about the accident immediately unless the claim is false. Further, as per Ex.A-2, inquest over the dead body was conducted and it was opined by the concerned mediators that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and one ticket bearing No.157534 which according to the applicants was purchased by the deceased was noted therein. It shows that by the time of incident the story was developed for the benefit of the kith and kin of the deceased. Further, as per Ex.A-3 post mortem report copy, the deceased received the following injuries : 1. Stitched wound present on the abdomen measuring 13 c.m. 2. Therapeutic incised injury present on right upper chest. 3. Therapeutic incised 3 injuries present on left infra axillary area present. 4. Multiple fractures of ribs on both sides present. 5. Therapeutic stitches present on liver for liver laceration and the death occurred due to shock due to the injuries. It does not speak that those injuries were possible by means of fall from a train. Therefore, the circumstances of the case prove that false case was foisted for the benefit of the applicants. The Tribunal considered the matter properly. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 04-03- 2011. DSH