THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 588 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, is directed against an order made in O.A.A. No. 136 of 1999 dated 28.3.2005 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the claim application filed by the respondents has been allowed by granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). Appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants/claimants in the O.A.A. It was the case of the applicants that on 14.8.1998 the deceased Rajaiah left for Peddapally to his relatives house to discuss some family matters, saying that he would return in the evening on the same day. He came to Peddapally Railway Station in the evening and purchased train ticket bearing No. 94280 to Odela by train No.322 Sirpurkagaznagar – Secunderabad fast passenger. He accidentally fell down from the running train between KM No.310/29 and 311/1 near Odela Railway Station due to jerks of the train and was dragged by the train, as a result of which his limbs were severed from the body and he was killed on the spot. Therefore, the applicants claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Appellant-respondent contested the matter by filing reply. It was contended that train No.322 arrived at Odela railway station at 18.28 hrs on 14.8.1998 and after halting for two minutes, it started again. No untoward incident was reported to the Guard. The deceased died on 15.8.1998 as evident from the injuries sustained by him and not in the evening of 14th, as alleged by the applicants. The applicants are not the dependants of the deceased and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he did not become a victim of an untoward incident. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Biyyala Rajaiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.322 Sirpurkagaznagar – Secunderabad fast passenger traveling from Peddapally to Odela on 14.8.1998 as alleged? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Odela railway station? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 filed her affidavit as AW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents, affidavit of one Madanaiah was filed as RW-1 and Ex.R1 was got marked. In view of Ex.A-4 certificate issued by the M.R.O., Odela, showing the respondents-claimants as dependents of the deceased and no rebuttal evidence having been adduced by the respondent in that regard, the respondents-claimants were held by the Tribunal as the dependents of the deceased and issue No.1 was answered accordingly. Insofar as issue No.2 was concerned, respondents- applicants filed journey ticket No.94280 from Peddapally to Odela, which is marked as Ex.A-7. Further, para 7 of Ex.A2 death (inquest) report discloses that railway traveling ticket No.94280 was found in the shirt pocket of the deceased; the dead body of the deceased was found on the track near railway station, bearing multiple injuries. No evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the appellant-respondent to show that the deceased was not having any ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the deceased was traveling with a ticket and he was a bona fide passenger. Insofar as issue No.3 was concerned, it gave a finding that the appellant-respondent has not let-in any evidence that the train reached Odela railway station at 18.28 hrs. The respondent has not led any evidence to show that the train reached Odela station at the scheduled time and no untoward incident was reported. Further, it is quite possible that the deceased might have fallen down from the train near Odela station around 18.28 hrs. and then his dead body might have been detected only in the wee hours on the next day. Ex.A-6 postmortem examination report shows that postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased between 8.15 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. on 16.8.1998. The duration of the death was found to be 36 to 40 hours prior to conducting postmortem examination. The report clearly proves that the deceased might have suffered injuries and died in the evening of 14.8.1998. The postmortem examination belies the contention of the respondent that the death took place on 15.8.1998. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the deceased did not fall from the train as alleged was disbelieved and the issue No.3 was answered holding that the deceased became victim of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Odela railway station. In view of the same, issue No.4 was answered by holding that the applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the appellant-respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and there was no negligence on the part of the railways and the railways has not played any role in the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that as per the contention of the claimants the death occurred on the spot on 14.8.1998 at Odela Station and the postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased between 8.15 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. on 16.8.1998, but there was no mention about the decomposition of the body, which reveals that the death occurred on 15.8.1998 but not on 14.8.1998 as alleged by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the application on surmises and conjectures and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- applicants supported the order passed by the Tribunal and contended that having considered the oral and the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased became a victim of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Odela railway station and, therefore, the respondents-applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. A close scrutiny of the material available on record discloses that though it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rajaiah died on 15.8.1998 but not on 14.8.1998 since there was no mention in the post mortem report about the decomposition of the body, absolutely no evidence has been adduced by the appellant in support of the said contention before the Tribunal in this regard. Only some aberrations here and there were sought to be argued. Even the Tribunal has found that the death occurred, according to Ex.A-6 postmortem examination report, about 36 to 40 hours prior to conducting postmortem examination. Merely because there was no mention about the decomposition of the body, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the appellant- respondent, it cannot be said that the death occurred on 15.8.1998 and not on 14.8.1998. The railway journey ticket was also found in the shirt pocket on the body of the deceased, which shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in passing the order dated 28.3.2005 directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondents-claimants, calling for interference of this Court under Section 23 of the Railways Act. There are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 1-7-2010. MVB.