THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 523 of 2007 04th March, 2011 Between: A. Lakshmi … Appellant And The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 523 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against the order dated 26-04-2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in O.A.A.No.161 of 2002; wherein the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellants for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000, consequent on the death of one Yadavalli Seshaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). 2. The appellant herein is the applicant in the O.A.A and the respondent herein is the respondent in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant is the daughter of the deceased. According to the applicant, the deceased boarded the train No.523 Secunderabad – Guntur Passenger, and fell down from the running train near Nandyala at Km 258/6-7 at 15.23 hrs and shifted to Nandyal railway station for first aid and later shifted to Govt. Hospital, Nandyal where he died while undergoing treatment on 09-05-2002 at 5:15 P.M. Further, the deceased being a bona fide passenger of the train, and the applicant, happening to be his legal heir, is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent-Railways has filed a written statement denying the pleas of the applicant. Further, the respondent claimed that the deceased was hit by engine cattle guard and fell down on the left side of the track while he was trying to cross the railway track from left to right and, then the train was backed and he was taken in the same train and was handed over to the Station Master, Nandyal for the sake of treatment and hence he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicant would not be entitled to claim any compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of accident? (ii) Whether the deceased died of injuries sustained in an untoward incident, if so, what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to? 6. The applicant got herself examined as A.W.1 and Exhibits A.1 to A.4 were marked for the applicant. For the respondent-Railways, the Driver of the Train No.523 was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits R-1 to R-3 were marked. 7. Examining the material on record, the Tribunal held the issues against the applicant on the ground that the applicant failed to prove her relationship and her dependency with the deceased and R.W.1 deposed that the deceased went and hit the train which was proved and dismissed the application without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred the present appeal. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that in fact the applicant happened to be the legal heir and dependent of the deceased, but she failed to adduce necessary evidence and she is ready to adduce necessary evidence in that context and further the evidence of R.W.1 was not considered by the Tribunal and hence, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for proper adjudication. 9. R.W.1 deposed in accordance with the claim of the respondent. But, it is clearly noted in Exhibit A-2-Inquest Report that R.W.1 along with Konda Babu, Asst. Driver and Hussain Saheb, Guard of the train and also one Sesha Reddy, ASM of the Railway Station, participated as mediators for the Inquest over the dead body, and they opined that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and subsequently died and, then the corresponding ticket was seized. It is quite contrary to the evidence of R.W.1 before the Tribunal. When the railway officials gave such opinion, the evidence of R.W.1 before the Tribunal is to be scrutinized with reference to that. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent and applicant have represented that the matter may be remitted to the lower Court for further consideration and examining the discrepancy giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary further evidence. 11. I agree with the representation made by both the sides in the circumstances of the case and, accordingly, this point is answered. 12. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to both sides, to recall R.W.1 for examination with reference to the discrepancy pointed out in his evidence and in the Inquest Report and further giving an opportunity to the applicant to adduce necessary further evidence to establish her legal-heirship and dependency with the deceased. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the observations made above and dispose of the matter afresh in right perspective. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 04th March, 2011 KSM