HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.426 OF 2006 Dated 10-2-2011 Between: Chakali Bharathamma @ Sujata. …Appellant. And: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.426 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (1) The appeal is filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against order of dismissal passed in O.A.A. No.184 of 1999 filed under Section 16 of the Railway Tribunal Act read with section 124A of the Railway Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, following death of one C.Balakrishnaiah who happened to be the husband of the 1st appellant and mother of the 2nd appellant. (2) The appellants herein are the applicants and respondent herein is the respondent in the said application. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application from here onwards. (3) The claim of the applicants is as follows: The deceased while travelling by general compartment of Kacheguda-Dronachellam passenger train No.523 on 27.6.1999 with ticket bearing No.98842, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at KM 107/7-8 between JCL-MBNR Railway stations because of high speed and sudden jerks of the train, and sustained several multiple injuries and died on the spot. He was a bonafide passenger of the train. Hence, the application. (4) The Respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants and further contending that if there was such fall from the train, it would amount to his own rash and negligent act and as such, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation in view of the exceptions provided under Section 124A of the Railway Act. (5) The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Chakali Balakrishnaiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.523 Kacheguda-Dronachalam passenger traveling from Kachiguda to Mahaboobnagar on 27-6- 99? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Jadcherla to Mahaboobnagar Railway stations as alleged? 4. To what relief? (6) On behalf of the applications, the 1st of them got examined himself as AW1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondent, it got examined R.Ws.1 to 3 who happened to be the guard of the train, Station Master and Chief booking supervisor respectively and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.6. (7) Examining the material available on record, the tribunal held the 1st issue in favour of the applicants and other issues against them mainly on the ground that the ticket in question was actually issued subsequent to the departure of the train from Kachiguda railway station and thus, there was no question of the deceased purchasing the ticket and travelling by the train. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. (8) There is no dispute about findings under the first issue. (9) It is to be mainly examined as to whether the deceased got valid ticket to travel by the train and further he was a bonafide passenger of the train, for the purpose of awarding the compensation claimed. (10) Evidence was adduced in support of the respective claims. (11) It is the evidence of R.W.3 with reference to Ex.R.2 Register of issuance of tickets that the ticket in question was issued at Kachiguda subsequent to the departure of the train. This evidence has not been rebutted and accordingly it is to be accepted. Hence, it proves that the ticket was issued really subsequent to the departure of the train from Kachiguda Railway Station. This circumstance apply proves that the same was planted subsequent to the incident for the purpose of making necessary claim for compensation for the benefit of the applicants. Otherwise, there is no basis to say that he travelled by the train as a bonaifde passenger. Ultimately, it is held that he was not a bonafide passenger of the train and the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. (12) The tribunal considered the matter properly and there are no grounds to interfere with its findings. (13) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 10-2-2011. Dvs/Sp HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.426 OF 2006 Dated 10-2-2011