HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.970 of 2005 Date: February 11, 2011 Between: Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta. … Appellant/ Respondent And 1. T. Rajkumari & another … Respondents/ Applicants * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.970 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order dated 04.7.2005 passed in O.A.A. No.257 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act for awarding compensation of Rs.1.00 following death of one T. Srinivasa Rao. 2. The Appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the said application. They will be referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the wife and minor son of the deceased T. Srinivasa Rao. On 08.8.1998 the deceased along with B. Malleswara Rao and Boina Krishna Rao, who were doing vegetables business, went to Srikakulam Road Railway Station for the purpose of going to Bhubaneswar for purchasing vegetables and they purchased tickets there and boarded Train No.8046 Hyderabad-Howrah East Coast Express. During the travel, some anti-social elements entered their compartment and violently attacked the deceased and three others and then the deceased was pushed outside from the running train in between Kotabommali and Navpada Railway Station at K.M. No.708/10-11 as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot during the night hours of 08.8.1998 and on information given, the GRP, Palasa registered a case. Further, the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying that any such untoward incident took place between the said railway stations and further claiming that no mention was made in the relevant FIR and panchanama about pushing them out from the running train. Ultimately, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of deceased T. Srinivasa Rao? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.8046 Hyderabad-Howrah East Coast Express traveling from Srikakulam Road to Bhubaneswar on 08.8.1998 as alleged? (3) Whether the deceased was a victim of dacoity and died as a result of an untoward incident of throwing him from the train by dacoits between Kotabommali and Navpada Railway Stations? (4) To what relief? 6. For the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and B. Krishna Rao was examined as A.W.2 as direct witness to the incident and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. Further the S.I. of Police, GRP, Palasa was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C-1 to C-7 were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs with a direction to deposit the amount within 60 days and with a further direction that in case of failure to do so, interest at the rate of 6% per annum should be paid till the date of realization from the date of falling 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 produced before the Tribunal in order to ascertain the question that the deceased travelled in the train and the Tribunal failed to consider the matter properly and arrived at erroneous conclusions and therefore the order is to be set aside. There is no dispute about the other issue. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered to whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased was a passenger of the train. When once that is proved, then the question of bona fide travel in the train comes into play. 10. It is quite significant to note here that such a ghastly incident of some miscreants entering into the compartment and beating several passengers therein and pushing some of them outside took place. Ultimately, there is no much dispute about that happening. Two FIRs were marked, one with regard to the dacoity and the other with regard to the death of the deceased. Inquest report can be made use of to ascertain the nature of the injuries received by the deceased and cause of death. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence from A.W.2 in support of the claim of the applicants about the incident. Hence, it is to be held that the question of incident and the question of death of the deceased as claimed by the applicants are established. 11. Further, with regards to the question of producing necessary ticket, when such a ghastly incident took place no body present there would be interested in picking up relevant tickets immediately and further the dacoits might have snatched away the belongings of the passengers in which kept their tickets or in that process the belongings of the passengers would have been thrown pell-mell to identify and present them properly later. Therefore, non-production of the ticket before the Court should not be taken seriously. Further the fact that the deceased and others were coming to Bhubaneswar from Srikakulam Road being vegetable vendors suggests that they must have purchased railway tickets for such a long journey being respectable persons. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable and the findings of the Tribunal hold good and accordingly the appeal is to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: February 11, 2011. BSB