HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.260 of 2006 Date: 04.02.2011 Between: Peddineedi Padmavathi & others. Petitioners. And: Union of India represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.260 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to set aside order dated 20-10-2005 passed in O.A.A.No.325 of 1999 filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124A and 125 of the Railway Act awarding Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant in view of death of late P.Rama Rao, who happened to be the husband of 1st applicant and father of the 2nd and 3rd applicants and son of the 4th & 5th applicants. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the tribunal. The case of the applicants is as follows: The deceased, accompanied by his friend namely, Ch.Venkateswara Rao, went to Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased ticket to go to Guntur and while the deceased was traveling in 2nd Class General Compartment in Train No.7055, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between Reddypalem and Nambur Railway stations on the night of 07.04.1999, and received injuries and died. Further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Further, the ticket was lost during the course of accident. Hence, the application. On behalf of the respondent, written statement was filed denying the pleas taken by the applicants. It is the specific case of the respondent that there is no basis to establish that the deceased travelled by the said train. The tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased P.Ramarao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7055 Narsapur-Hyderabad Express travelling from Vijayawada to Guntur on 07.04.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall between Reddipalem – Nambur Railway Stations? 4. To what relief ? On behalf of the applicants, the first of them was examined as A.W-1 and one Ch.Venkateswara Rao was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. On the basis of the material available, the tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and held the second issue against the applicants not believing the evidence of AW-2 and also on the ground that the corresponding ticket was not seized at the time of Inquest of the dead body. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered as to whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased travelled by the train and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. 2. Whether the tribunal considered the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions. POINT No.1: Initially, the applicants have to place satisfactory evidence to the effect that the deceased travelled by the train and only when that is proved, then the Railway is burdened with establishing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. It is important to note that at the time of conducting Inquest Report over the dead body, no ticket was seized from the deceased. Further, AW-2 in his affidavit, stated that both himself and P.Ramarao went to the Railway Station and purchased train tickets in order to go to Guntur; whereas, according to his deposition, he purchased only one ticket for the deceased. However, without producing the corresponding ticket, coupled with non-satisfactory evidence of AW-2, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the deceased actually travelled by the train. Hence, the very claim of the applicants is defeated whereas the question of proving that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train does not arise ultimately. POINT No.2: The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at the correct conclusions and there is no reason to reject the same. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and ultimately, it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this C.M.A. is dismissed. _____________________________________ Justice G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 4-2-2011. Ksm/Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No. 260 of 2006 Date: 04.02.2011