THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.104 of 2007 JUDGMENT:- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act against the order dated 30.10.2006 made in O.A.A.No.155 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had taken this Court through the ground Nos.2 to 9 raised in the grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the light of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to be allowed. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondents would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, this is not a fit matter t be interfered with. 4. Heard the learned counsel on record. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal_:- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad is to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 6. POINT NO:1- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as the applicants and respondent as shown in O.A.A.No.155 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter in short referred to as “The Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 7. This application is filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act by one Reeta Kuwar and others for compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of her husband by name Yogeshwara Sharma (hereinafter in short referred to as “the deceased” for the purpose of convenience) in an untoward incident of accidental fall. 8. The case of the applicants reads as follows:- “It is stated that her deceased-husband was employed in B.G.S. Construction Technology Ltd., Tirupati. As a Construction worker, the deceased along with three other persons, purchased on 14.03.2002 one combined second class journey ticket bearing No.172499 for four members from Muri to Tirupathi. Another group of workers also purchased two group tickets from Muri to Tirupathi and all of them boarded Train No.8689 Bokaro-Alleppy Express at Muri Railway Station and reached Vizag on 15.03.02 and changed over to Train No.7488 Tirumala Express, to go to Tirupathi. During the mid-night on 15.03.02. when the train crossed Tenali Railway Station, the deceased had been to lavatory and due to sudden jolt and jerk of the train, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the running train near Appikotla Railway Station yard at KM No.363/29-31, sustained fatal injuries an died subsequently.” 9. The respondent-railways had not admitted the case stating that a dead body of a male person was found lying by the right side of the Up Main line at KM 363/29-31 by the Keyman of the respondent Railways at 7.20 hours, who reported the matter to Station Master. They have also submitted that the Guard of Train No.7488 of 14.03.02. Ex.BZA to BTTR has reported that his train passed through Appikatla Railway Station at 0.10 hours on 15.03.02 and that he was not aware of any incident of any body falling from the train or anything has been reported to him nor there was any Alarm Chain Pulling. In the circumstances, they have not admitted that the deceased has fallen down from the train nor that the fall is an untoward incident entitling the applicants for any compensation. They have also stated that the applicants are to prove the bonafide of the deceased as a passenger of Train No.7488 on 15.03.2002. 10. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased-Yogeshwar Sharma? (2) Whether the deceased was a bonaide passenger of Train No.8689 Bokaro-Aleppy express from Muri to Tirupathi by changing at Visakhapatnam on 14.03.02? (3) Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train near Appikatla Railway Station yard? (4) To what relief? 11. The applicant No.1 herself was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. A.W.2 was also examined, who had substantiated the stand taken by A.W.1. On behalf of the Railways, the Keyman of Appikatla Railway Station Yard was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked. 12. The learned Tribunal while answering issue No.1 referred to the evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased. Further, the learned Tribunal while answering issue No.2, recorded reasons at paragraph 6 and came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and while answering issue No.3, the evidence available on record had been appreciated at paragraph 7 and convincing reasons had been recorded and ultimately, came to the conclusion that an untoward incident had been established. 13. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court is satisfied that there is no legal infirmity warranting interference with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 14. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: 08.07.2010 bud