HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.453 OF 2006 Dated 4-2--2011 Between: Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant. And: K. Nandini and others …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.453 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (1) This C.M.A. is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 1-3- 2006 passed in O.A.A.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. (2) The respondents herein are the applicants and the appellant herein is the respondent in O.A.A.No.53 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. (3) The applicants being wife and children of late K.R.Srinivas (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased) filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on the ground that the deceased while traveling by train No.164 passenger (Hyderabad-Warangal) as bonafide passenger holding necessary ticket from Secunderabad to Ghanpur on 12-3-2001, slipped from the train when the train was leaving platform No.4 at Secuderabad Railway Station as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died. (4) The respondent filed written statement denying the claim of the applicants totally. (5) The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased K.R.Srinivas? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.164 Hyderabad-Warangal passenger travelling from Secunderabad to Ghanpur on 12-3-2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Secunderabad railway station? 4. To what relief? (6) On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. (7) On the basis of material available on record, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and accordingly allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has preferred this appeal. (8) It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that as per the 3rd column of the Inquest Report marked, the Inquest was conducted over the dead body at Platform No.2 of Nampally Railway Station whereas, according to the applicants, the incident took place at Platform No.4 of Secunderabad Railway Station and therefore, different versions are there about the place of accident and no eye witness was examined and no satisfactory evidence was adduced about the travel of the deceased and the tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly to accept its verdict. There is no dispute about the findings under the issue No.1. Therefore, it is to be examined as to whether the applicants proved their claim under the second issue and whether the tribunal considered the matter properly and its order is sustainable or not. (9) According to AW.1, the deceased informed her about his going to Ghanpur from Secunderabad with baggage including gold ring, brass ring and some cash and subsequently, she was informed that he fell down in the railway station at Secunderabad from a train and received injuries and died on the spot. (10) As per the 3rd Column of the Inquest Report, the inquest was conducted over the dead body at platform No.2 of Nampally Railway Station whereas other relevant columns of the Inquest Report provide that it was conducted only at Platform No.4 of Secunderabad Railway Station without delay. It also provides that then the ticket of the deceased was seized which is very important. Further, as per the FIR, the case was registered by the Railway Police, Secunderabad and as per the inquest report they sent the dead body for post-mortem examination after the inquest. (11) There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of AW.1. It appears that, by mistake, in the 3rd column of the Inquest Report, it was mentioned that the inquest was conducted at the 2nd platform of Nampally Railway Station. If the inquest was conducted at the 2nd platform of Nampally Railway Station only, other relevant columns of the Inquest Report would not have been filled with different entries. The issue can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hold that the applicants have proved their claim to the effect that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. (12) The tribunal considered the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal. In the result, this C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 4-2-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.453 OF 2006 Dated 4-2--2011