THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.922 of 2005 JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant/respondent. 2. Though the respondents had been served none represents them. 3. The learned counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the elaborate grounds specified in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal has to be allowed. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the appellant, 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 set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 5. POINT NO:1- The parties hereinafter for the purpose of convenience would be referred to as shown in O.A.A.No.218 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter in short referred to as “The Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 6. The case of the applicants reads as follows:- “The deceased B-Suresh Kumar was employed at Hyderabad, who came to native place at Ananthavaram 3 days prior to 17-3-1998. To return back to Hyderabad, he went to Tenali Railway Station on 17-3-98 along with one Tumati Dhanaraj and purchased two journey tickets separately and they boarded in train No.7005 Tenali- Secunderabad Nagarjuna express. They boarded in second class general compartment. When the train passed to some distance, the deceased-B. Suresh Kumar slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at Tenali Railway Station. On account of the severe multiple injuries, he died on the spot at 12.48 hrs. The applicants are the dependents and legal heirs as such they are entitled to claim for compensation on account of the death occurred to the deceased in the railway accident as untoward incident.” 7. The Railways-Union of India filed written statement denying the averments made in the application, which reads as under:- “As per the panchanama version, train No.7005 was slowly coming on platform No.1, the deceased while boarding train slipped and fell down and cut into pieces and died on the spot which is in contravention of the allegations that the deceased died after the said train had passed to some distance. In fact, train No.7006 and not 7005 is the train that runs from Secunderabad to Tenali and in fact, that train rolled into platform No.1 and departs from the same platform as train No.7005 express Tenali to Secunderabad and it is not understood what prompted to the deceased to board the incoming train. The allegations of the applicants that the deceased accidentally fell down from the passing train No.7005 was non accordance as far as the train is concerned. It will not attract Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. It was due to his own criminal act and thereby it attracts the proviso to Section 124A of Railways Act. It is clear that the deceased committed suicide by throwing himself wantonly before another running rake well before the departure of train No.7005 as per the version of the eye witness and records and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim.” 8. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether applicants are dependents of the deceased- B.Suresh Kumar? (2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.7005 Tenali-Secunderabad Nagarjuna express traveling from Tenali to Secunderabad on 17-3-1998? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accident fall from the train at Tenali railway station? (4) To what relief? 9. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. A court witness by name B.H. Venkateshwar was also examined. On behalf of the Railways, the Station Superintendent had been examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. 10. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded reasons in details at paragraphs 7 to 10 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 11. The Second ground of attack is that the deceased in fact committed suicide by falling in front of the train. Though the stand had been taken, no convincing evidence had been placed in this regard and specific findings had been recorded by the learned Tribunal at paragraph 8 of the order. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard, this Court is satisfied that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with for the reason that the learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence of A.W.1, A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and also the Court witness R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 and R.2 has been in proper perspective. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 12. 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