IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPAL No.1079 OF 2008 Date:18-08-2011 Between:- Kilaparthi Vijaya Lakshmi and others. … Petitioners And Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPAL No.1079 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Tribunal Act’) is directed against the order, dated 22-06-2006, in O.A.A. No.317 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants - applicants under Section 16 of the Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation for the death of K. Venkata Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is the husband of the 1st applicant and father of the applicants 2 and 3, in an untoward incident of fall from a train on 20- 10-2001, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The deceased, while traveling in train No.6804 (Tiruchanapalli to Howra Express) from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam on 20-10-2001, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train near Samalkota South Cabin, due to which he got severe injuries and died on the same day in Kakinada Headquarters Hospital, while undergoing treatment. 3. The respondent - Railways denied the case of the applicants and pleaded that the said train does not have a stop at Samalkot Station and when the train was passing slowly through road No.2 i.e. loop line, the Cabin ASM noticed a male person attempting to alight from ongoing train and fell down, that the deceased died due to his own negligence and hence, the railway is not liable to pay compensation as this fell under the exception clause in Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Kilaparthi Venkata Satyanarayana? 2. Whether the deceased was bona fide passenger of train No.6804 Tiruchchirapalli – Howra Express traveling from Rajahmundry to Visakahpatnam on 20-10- 2001? 3. Whether the deceased had slipped accidentally and fallen down in an untoward incident near Samalkot railway station South Cabin, sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries on the same day while getting treatment in Kakinada HO Hospital? 5. On behalf of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.A., observing that the deceased attempted to jump out of the train when it was in motion near Samalkot station, where it did not have a scheduled stop, and that the fall of the deceased is on account of self- inflicted injuries. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that some of the witnesses, who were present at the time of incident, whose names were recorded in the inquest report, have not been examined and that if a person jumps from a running train, such person would not have received as many as 21 injuries and therefore, requested for remand of the matter. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same on the ground that due opportunity was given to the appellants to lead evidence and that the evidence of RW.1 is very clear about the deceased jumping from the running train and therefore, the death of the deceased cannot be said to be caused in an untoward incident and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. As seen from the record, one of the daughters of the deceased is not impleaded as party to the petition. Therefore, it requires that she has to be impleaded in the petition. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. But it is the case of the Railway Administration that the deceased jumped from the running train, which comes under the category of self-inflicted injury therefore, the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased had fallen from the running train due to the jerk of the train and consequently an untoward incident occurred and that some of the witnesses, who were present at the time of incident, have been examined during the course of inquiry by the police officials and the addresses of those eye witnesses have not been known to the appellants at the time when the case is pending and now they traced them and want to examine them as witnesses to substantiate their case, and further the police after completion of enquiry, filed a final report therefore, to summon the final report, the matter needs to be remanded. In view of the fact that the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial piece of legislation, one more opportunity can be given to the appellants to substantiate their case. 12. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to give an opportunity to the appellants to let in evidence. After receipt of record from this Court, the Tribunal shall grant two months time for the appellants to adduce evidence and thereafter further two months time can be given to the Railway Administration for letting its evidence and thereafter, the case has to be disposed of in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J August 18, 2011. KTL