HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No. 344 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.156 of 1999 dated 06.01.2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the said O.A.A. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the application here afterwards. The application was filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act r/w Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- by the applicants following death of their son K. Vikram Chowdary. The claim of the applicants is as follows: On 27.05.1999, the deceased along with his friend Rajakalyan Chakravarthy went to Khammam railway station and purchased two journey tickets for them to travel from Khammam to Vijayawada and boarded train No.7406 Hyderabad – Tirupati Krishna Express in II Class General Compartment. Further submitted that while travelling, the deceased Vikram Chowdary slipped and fell down accidentally from the train at Km No.576/8-10 between Rayanapadu and New West Block of S.C.Railway by which he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, this application. The respondent filed a counter denying the claims of the applicants and further contending that no ticket was taken from the dead body and he was not bona fide passenger of the train and the application should be dismissed. The Tribunal framed issues for trial on the basis of material available as follows: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased K. Vikram Chowdhary? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7406 Hyderabad – Tirupati Krishna express travelling from Khammam to Vijayawada on 27.05.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Rayanapadu and New West Block of S.C. Railway? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them got examined himself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. Examining the material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the person said to have accompanied the deceased was not examined and no ticket was seized at the time of inquest of the dead body and necessary steps were not taken to trace out the deceased immediately by him relatives and so on. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. Therefore, it is to be established as to whether sufficient evidence was placed before the Tribunal, to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and erred at correct conclusions and its order is sustainable in law. A.W.1 deposed to the effect that on the relevant date, the deceased left their house for the purpose of his journey from Khammam to Vijayawada and subsequently he came to know that the deceased fell down from a train and received injuries and died. Ex.A.1 a copy of relevant F.I.R supports the claim of the applicants, but it is pertinent to note that the person said to have accompanied the deceased was not examined before the Tribunal in spite of giving sufficient time to do so. Further as per the inquest report, the inquest was conducted on 28.05.1999 between 9.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M but no ticket was seized from the dead body and then it was opined that the deceased while travelling by train No.7406 sitting at a door, lost control and suddenly fell down from the train in motion and due to the injuries sustained , died on the spot. It does not speak that any eyewitness to the incident was examined at that time. Therefore, such an opinion arrived at cannot be based. In fact the inquest has to be taken into consideration only for he purpose of asserting what injuries the deceased received and what was the cause of death and nothing more. Further, significantly nobody was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the railways. However, there is no dispute that the alleged incident took place on 27.05.1999. The F.I.R was registered on 27.05.1999 and on the next day the inquest over the ded body was conducted and the keyman of the railways traced the dead body. Further in the affidavit, it is stated by A.W.1 that the said co-passenger of the deceased informed about the incident at around 1 to 2 P.M on 27.05.1999 itself and further they waited for railway people till 9.00 A.M on the next day. It is quite unnatural to believe the same because when such an incident took place the kith and kin of the deceased would be quite anxious to rush to the railway station or place of accident to see the dead body. In the above said circumstances, the claim of A.W.1 that the deceased left the house for the purpose of travel, by train and the said co– passenger accompanied the deceased to the railway station and a ticket was purchased for the deceased and so on is not acceptable. No doubt, the railways have to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train, but there should be basis to say that the deceased traveled by the train. Hence, the claim is not maintainable. The Tribunal examined the evidence on record properly and arrived at a correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs, in the circumstances. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 28th February, 2011 PNV