HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.492 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short ‘the Act’), is directed against an order dated 29/03/2005 made in O.A.A.No.307 of 1999 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, whereunder the claim filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Indian Railways Act, 1989, claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Kopparu Bala Paparao was allowed and compensation as prayed was directed to be paid to the dependants/claimants. According to the claimants, on 18/08/1999, deceased Kopparu Bala Paparao went to Vijayawada from Rajahmundry to see his maternal uncle’s family and stayed there for two days and while returning on the night of 20/08/1999, the deceased Paparao was dropped at Vijayawada Railway Station by his maternal uncle T.Subbarao, who purchased the train journey ticket from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry and sent the deceased by train No.7008 Hyderabad – Visakhapatnam Godavari Express in II class general compartment. After giving send off to the deceased, T.Subbarao returned home. The deceased Paparao while traveling in the train slipped and fell down accidentally from the said train during the night hours between Godavari and Rajahmundry railway stations at KM No.577/20 due to speed and jerks of the train and in the result, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The appellant/railways contested the case and contended inter alia that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and did not become a victim of an “untoward incident” and further, the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Koppuru Bala Paparao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7008 Hyderabad- Visakhapatnam Godavari Express traveling from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry on 20/08/1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at KM No.577/20 between Godavari and Rajahmundry railway stations? 4. To what relief?” The trial Court found that in Ex.A-5 certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer the applicants were shown as the legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased was shown as unmarried. No rebuttal evidence has been filed by the respondent. Therefore, it was held that applicants were the legal heirs of the deceased. In so far as issue no.2 was concerned, it was recorded that the facts were proved by the affidavit of T.Subba Rao as A.W.2 and further by the applicant No.1 K.Krishna Rao as A.W.1. These two witnesses were not cross-examined. Their statements were not rebutted by the respondents. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of A.W.2, who stated that he purchased the journey ticket for the deceased on the previous night of 20/08/1999 and he saw the deceased boarding train No.7008 Godavari Express and these facts go to show that the deceased was traveling in the above said train on the night of the occurrence of the incident and thus, found that he was a bona fide passenger and further found that he died in an “untoward incident” and thus, granted Rs.4,00,000/- compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence placed by the respondents to show that the deceased traveled in train No.7008 Godavari Express from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry and died in an “untoward incident”. There was no documentary evidence to this effect since the ticket of the deceased was not traceable. I am afraid, I may not be able to accept with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Nothing prevented the appellant/respondent from cross-examining the witnesses A.Ws.1 and 2. In fact, they were not cross- examined and their evidence was not rebutted and no evidence was let in by the respondents. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased died in an “untoward incident” while traveling in train No.7008 Godavari Express from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 01st July, 2010 SKM