HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CMA No.966 of 2004 Dated: 24.6.2010 Between: 1. Smt. Goru Kanthamma and others ..APPELLANTS And Union of India rep., by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad .. RESPONDENT. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CMA No.966 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Heard the Counsel on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants had taken this Court through the elaborate grounds, which had been raised in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that the Railway Claims Tribunal totally erred in dismissing the claim. On the contrary, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent would maintain that the very incident was doubted and in the light of the convincing reasons, which had been recorded, especially, in the light of the fact that there is no eye witness at all, who had been examined, it is a fit matter to be dismissed. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, the following points arise for consideration in this CMA: 1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal are to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) If so, to what compensation, the applicants should be entitled? POINT No.1: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful applicants against the order made in OAA No.300 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short referred as ‘Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience). It is the case of the applicants that the deceased left Visakhapatnam on 9.9.1999 from his residence for going to Tirupathi with a view to stay there for three days and have Darshan of Lord Venkateshwara Swamy and that he talked to his daughter on phone on 13.9.1999 morning that he was returning to Visakhapatnam by Tirupathi-Howrah express either on 13.9.1999 or on 14.9.1999, but the applicants received death message of the deceased from Government Railway Police, Tuni on 15.9.1999 and that they rushed to the spot and identified the deceased. It is further stated that the deceased while travelling from Tirupathi to Visakhapatnam by Tirupathi – Howrah express had accidentally fallen down between Pithapuram and Gollaprolu railway stations and died on the spot and that he was possessing a pass No.958818. The respondent filed written statement denying the said averments. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased G. Kumaraswamy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train Tirupati –Howrah express travelling from Tirupati to Visakhapatnam on the intervening night of 13/14.9.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Pithapuram and Gollaprolu railway stations? 4. To what relief ? The 2nd applicant filed his affidavit as A.W.1 besides examining one R. Chandramouli, Investigating Officer as A.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the original pass; Ex.A2 is the copy of the FIR; Ex.A3 is the copy of the inquest report and Ex.A4 is the copy of the postmortem examination report. As against this evidence, the respondent filed affidavit of P. Krishna Mohan, Guard of the train and filed the extract of Guard’s Journal as Ex.R1. The learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence available on record and referred to Section 124-A of the Railways Act and also certain decisions and came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the applicants miserably failed to establish the claim, the same had been dismissed. It is no doubt true that the learned Tribunal specifically observed that there is no eye witness to the incident. This Court had gone through the evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 and also had gone through Exs.A1 to A4 as a whole. This Court had also gone through the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 as a whole. In the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that sufficient evidence had not been placed, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence. Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if they choose. POINT No.2: In the light of the findings recorded above, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence in all aspects, if they choose. The CMA is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 24th June, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CMA No:966 OF 2004 24th June, 2010