HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.386 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011 Between: Nadiminti Lakshmi. …Appellant. And: Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.386 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is directed against order of dismissal passed in O.A.A.No.254 of 2000 dated 15-12-2005 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124A and Section 125 of the Railways Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, following death of one N.Bala Narsing (in short “the deceased”). 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the application. 3. The case set up by the applicant is as follows: She happened to be the mother of the deceased. The deceased boarded train No.573 at Secunderabad to go to Bolaram on 19-11-2000 along with his son Ramesh for distributing his marriage cards and later, Ramesh got done at Malkajgiri Railway Station and in between Malkajgiri and Dayanandnagar Railway Station, the deceased slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries and died on the spot. Further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. 4. The respondent filed written statement in which it is claimed that the pleas taken by the applicant are totally false and the Station Master of B.Cabin sent a message to the Government Railway Police about the accident and further a report given by the guard of the train, that the driver of the train informed that a person was hit and run over while crossing the track and it is also its case that there was negligence on the part of the deceased which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries. Ultimately, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the tribunal. 1) Whether the Applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Nadiminti Bala Narsing? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train No.573 Secunderabad - Bodhan passenger travelling from Secunderabad to Bolarum on 19-11-2000? 3) Whether the death of the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Malkajgiri and Dayanand Nagar Railway Stations? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, she got herself examined as AW.1 and further examined A.W.2 younger brother of the deceased and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest Report and Postmortem Examination Report, Election Identity Card of the applicant and marriage card of the deceased, respectively. 7. Examining the material available on record, the tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicant and 2nd and 3rd issues against the applicant. Therefore, the present application has been preferred. 8. The claimant mainly relies upon the evidence of AW.2 apart from the contents of Exs.A.1 to A.5 to uphold her claim. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to (1) whether the respondent placed sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train subject to the proof that he travelled by the train; and (2) Whether the tribunal examined the material available properly and whether its order is sustainable or not? 10. POINTS 1 AND 2: Initial burden lies upon the applicant to establish that the deceased actually travelled by the train and then it is for the respondent to establish that he was not a bonaifde passenger of the train. As per the F.I.R., the case was registered at 2.10 P.M., whereas the alleged incident took place at 11 A.M., on information given by a railway employee to the effect that dead body of a male person was traced between Malkajgiri and Dayanandnagar Railway Stations. Further, the inquest report provides that the inquest over the dead body was conducted in between 4 P.M., and 6 P.M., on the same day. It does not provide that any document was seized from the dead body of the deceased. If any objective findings were there, the same can be looked into for the present purpose. 11. Further, AW.2 says that in fact, he accompanied the deceased to the railway station and the deceased purchased ticket for his travel by the train and subsequently he came to know about the death of the deceased. Being a brother of the deceased AW2 must have interest over the deceased and her kith and kin. Except his oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence to uphold his evidence. It is clear that he was planted in the case as witness. 12. In the absence of seizure of any ticket from the body of the deceased and the evidence of AW.2 is not of any use, therefore, absolutely, there is no good basis to uphold the claim of the applicant and eventually, the application is to be dismissed. 13. The Tribunal examined the matter properly and gave correct findings and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 14. In the result, this C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 8-2-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.386 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011