IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.34 of 2005 Between: V. Siddiramulu & another .. Appellants AND Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, S.C. Rly, Secunderabad. .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.34 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is field under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the order, dated 29.11.2001, in O.A.A.No.73 of 1998, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 2. The O.A.A. is filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Vanjarapu Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’). 3. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the application. 4. The case of the applicants is as follows: The applicants are the parents of the deceased who was aged 18 years. On 13.04.1998, the deceased boarded in general compartment of Train No.573-D, Secudnerabad – Bodhan Passenger. When the train reached Wadiaram Railway Station, the deceased bent forward to spit out and that he was hit by starter signal pole and he fell down accidentally from the train and sustained injuries. He was given first aid by the Guard of the train and he was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he succumbed to injuries at 6.20 p.m. It is further stated that the journey Ticket bearing No.00516 from Malkajgiri to Kamareddi was misplaced subsequently by the family members of the deceased. According to the complainant, he was holding Ticket bearing No.00516 to travel from Malkajgiri to Kamareddi. Hence, the claim. 5. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further claiming that the alleged Ticket No.00516 was issued five years back the accident which proves that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further, no such untoward incident took place. Therefore, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3. Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the applicants, the first applicant, who is the father of the deceased, got examined as A.W.1 and further another witness, the uncle of the deceased who claims to have travelled with the deceased, was examined as A.W.2 to prove about the accident and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which are letter from the Station Master, Wadiaram, copy of First Information Report, copy of Inquest Report, Death Report and copy of Control Message Extract respectively. Further, on behalf of the respondent, Mr. P.V.A.N. Murthy, the Guard of the Train No.573-D Passenger, was examined as R.W.1 and Senior Booking Clerk of Malkajgiri Railway Station was examined as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-4, which are Guard’s Memo, DTC Extract, DTC Register and Ticket Stock Register respectively. 8. Basing on the material available on record, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the second and third issues against the applicants on the ground that the ticket bearing No.00516 was issued five years prior to the accident and, therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger in the train when the accident took place. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that it is quite unnatural that the deceased was carrying the ticket bearing No.00516 issued five years prior to the accident and in fact, the concerned Superintendent issued memo to the effect that he found the same ticket with the deceased which amply infers that he, in fact, found a genuine ticket with the deceased which must be a different one by reason of which, it cannot be said that he was not a bona fide passenger in the train. 10. Ultimately, there is no dispute that the deceased fell down from the train. Further, by virtue of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, even such passengers do come within the purview of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, subject to travel holding valid ticket. 11. It is to be mainly examined as to whether he was holding valid ticket for travel by the train. In order to resolve the dispute, the concerned Superintendent who issued the memo is to be examined with reference to the memo. Therefore, the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal for resolving the dispute, examining the Superintendent with reference to the relevant record. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of remanding the matter to the Tribunal for resolving the dispute, examine the Superintendent with reference to the relevant record and further, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order as it is very old. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 13th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.34 of 2005 Date: 13th April, 2011 KL