HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.45 of 2006 Date: February 11, 2011 Between: Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, S.C. Railways, Secunderabad. … Appellant And 1. Maddela Vijaya & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.45 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed to set aside order dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.A.A. No.183 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and under Section 124 A of Railways Act, awarding Rs.4,00,000/- lakhs to the respondents-applicants therein following death of one Maddela Premraj. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the said application. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application. 3. The claim of the appellants is as follows: They happened to be wife, minor children and mother of the said deceased. On 10.3.1999 while the deceased was travelling by Train No.6045 Navjeevan Express from Surat to Warangal with a valid ticket, he slipped and fell down from the train and he was dragged and consequently died at 6-15 a.m. near Rechni Road – Repalliwada Railway Station. He was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants and further pleading that relevant documents were concocted taking help from G.R.P. and it is unnatural that such a fall took place at one of the doors of the train. Further, dead body of a male person was noticed lying on the up line between Rechni Road Railway Station – Repalliwada Railway Station. Further, he was not holding any ticket and hence he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Ultimately the respondent pleaded dismissal of the application. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Maddela Premraj? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passender of Train No.6045 Ahmadabad – Chennai Navjivan Express travelling from Surat to Warangal on 09.3.1999? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Rechni Road and Repalliwada Railway Stations on 10.3.1999 at 6-15 hours as alleged? (4) To what relief? 6. For the applicant, the first applicant got herself examined as A.W.1 and also got examined Gurram Ramulu as A.W.2 to speak about the incident as a co-passenger of the deceased and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondent, the guard of the train was examined as R.W.1, the Deputy Station Superintendent of Bellampalli was examined as R.W.2 and the Keyman of the said railway station was examined as R.W.3, but no exhibits were marked. 7. On the strength of material available, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and granted the relief prayed for by the applicants passing the award for Rs.4.00 lakhs appropriating Rs.1.00 lakh to the 4th applicant and the remaining Rs.3.00 lakhs to the applicants 1 to 3 with a direction to the Railways to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which to pay interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date it would fall due. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. It is the main contention of learned counsel for the respondent that no ticket was seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased at the time of inquest over his dead body and, in fact, relevant ticket number was given four months later and apart from A.W.2 no other person, including brother of the deceased, was examined as witness and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence adduced properly and hence the order passed by the Tribunal is to be set aside. 9. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue. It is therefore to be examined as to whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased travelled in the train and he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions. 10. The evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 discloses that tickets were kept in a bag and the bag was taken to the house of a relative and hence the ticket could not be handed over to the concerned authorities without any delay. However, there is no serious context about the travel of the deceased along with his colleagues from Surat to Warangal. Further, A.W.2 gave very cogent and satisfactory evidence to the effect that the deceased travelled along with others from Surat by the train in question and during the journey the deceased fell down from the train and he and other persons tried to stop the train, but it was not stopped and later they got down at the next station and returned to the place where the accident took place and then the consequential measures were taken. It is important to note that on the same day the Deputy Station Superintendent of Bellampalli Railway Station gave report to the Railway Police to the effect that the deceased fell down from the train at 8-30 a.m. Further, the inquest report provides that at 2.00 p.m. on the same day inquest over the dead body was done and it was opined that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and died in between Bellampalli Railway Station and Rechni Road Railway Station. Further it is something unnatural that the deceased would have travelled from Surat covering very long distance without purchasing any ticket along with his colleagues. Therefore, taking this circumstance into consideration what is deposed by A.Ws.1 and 2 that his ticket was kept in a bag, which was taken to the house of a relative, and hence it could not be produced, whereas it was produced at a later point of time can be accepted to be true under the circumstances enumerated. Therefore it is proved that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. The Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with its order. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: February 11, 2011. BSB