THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 459 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against an order made in O.A.A. No. 143 of 1999 dated 17.3.2005 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, whereunder the application filed by the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of death of their son in the railway accident that occurred on 29/30.4.1999 was allowed as prayed for. Appellant is the respondent and respondents are the applicants in O.A.A.No. 143 of 1999. Parties are referred to, as arrayed in O.A.A.No. 143 of 1999. It appears, applicants filed an application stating that on 29.4.1999 their son Kalvala Anand left for Balharsha from Bellampalli to get his aunt by name Venkamma to their residence at Bellampalli for fixing a new door frame entrance to their newly constructing house as customary convention. On the intervening night of 29/30.4.1999, he, along with his aunt, was returning to Bellampalli from Balharsha by Train No.7022 Dakshin Express by purchasing two tickets at Balharsha. While getting down from the train at Bellampalli railway station, Kalvala Anand accidentally slipped, fell down and was run over by the train, as a result of which his body was cut into pieces and he died on the spot. Both the deceased and his aunt were traveling with II Class ticket Nos. 75177 and 75178 from Balharsha to Bellampalli. Therefore, the parents of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Respondent contested the application by filing reply, contending, inter alia, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, he did not fall from the train accidentally, the death of K. Anand appears to be on account of committing suicide and, therefore, the case is not covered under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. On the basis of the above, the following issues were framed for trial: “.1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Kalvala Anand? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 7022 Dakshin Express traveling from Balharsha to Bellampalli on 30.4.99? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Bellampalli railway station? 4. To what relief?” On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 had filed his affidavit as AW-1 and one Venkamma was examined as AW-2 and documents Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no evidence whatsoever was adduced. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the applicants were dependents of the deceased and the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.7022 Dakshin Express from Balharsha to Bellampalli and holding ticket Nos. 75177 and 75178 for himself and his aunt and the accident that occurred was not a suicide but an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train while getting down, and as such, awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent Sri B.H.R. Chowdary strenuously contended that though on issue Nos. 1 and 2 there may not be any controversy, the very accident cannot be called as an untoward incident as defined under the Act. The nature of the accident itself discloses that the deceased was negligent and the body of the deceased was mutilated, which shows that he jumped from running train and thus committed suicide. Though such an argument is advanced and in the reply such a plea was taken, absolutely, no evidence – either oral or documentary – was let in by the appellant-respondent to prove the said aspect. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the accident was an untoward incident and was due to accidental fall from passenger train in which the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said either arbitrary or illegal and it does not call for interference of this Court under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunal Act. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 29-7-2010. MVB.