HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.811 OF 2006 Dated 18-2-2011 Between: Rongali Appala Naidu and another. …Appellants. And: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.811 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is directed against order of dismissal passed in O.A.A.No.73 of 2001 dated 05-6-2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, Bench at Secunderabad filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124A and 125 of the Railways Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, following death of one Rongali Srinivasa Rao (in short “the deceased”). 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the application. 3. The case set up by the applicants is as follows: The deceased purchased a train ticket to go to Tuni from Visakhapatnam and boarded train bearing No.7479 Howrah- Tirupathi Express in second class general compartment and during the journey, at about 23 hours, on the intervening night of 10/11-8-2000, he accidentally slipped and fell down due to the jerks of the train at Visakhapatnam Railway Station itself and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Therefore, the applicants who happened to be the parents of the deceased are entitled to the compensation. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the claim of the applicants including the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the tribunal. 1) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Rongali Srinivasarao? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7479 Howrah-Tirupati Express travelling from Visakhapatnam to Tuni on the intervening night of 10/11- 8-00? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Visakhapatnam Railway Station? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the 2nd applicant was examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest Report and Post- mortem Examination Report, Death Certificate and Legal Heir Certificate, respectively. On behalf of the respondent, the Station Master of the Visakkhapatnam Railway Station was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1. 7. The Tribunal while disposing of the first issue observed that the applicants should be entitled to necessary award subject to producing relevant Legal Heir Certificate and further, the Tribunal held the issue Nos. 2 to 3 against the applicants mainly on the ground that no eye witness was examined and no document was marked and hence, it was not proved that he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. In order to dispose of the appeal, it is to be seen whether sufficient evidence was placed to prove that the applicants happened to be Legal Heirs of the deceased and the deceased happened to be bonafide passenger of the train, and as such they are entitled to the compensation as prayed for. Then it is to be considered as to whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions. 9. POIONT No.2: A.W.1 deposed about her relationship with the deceased and also about the claim made by them in the application without being eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, her evidence is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the deceased was travelling in the train holding valid ticket. Further as per the Inquest Report on 11-8-2000 itself, inquest over the dead body was conducted and one ring and Identity Card of the deceased were seized at that time and it was opined that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and died on the spot. It does not speak that any ticket was recovered from the deceased at that time. The Inquest Report is admissible to ascertain the nature of injuries said to be received by the deceased and also about the cause of his death. When the inquest over the dead body was conducted without much delay and no railway ticket was seized from him, it cannot be said that he was going in the train having purchased a valid ticket. It is also important that no eye witness to the incident was examined before the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was a bonafide passenger of the train. By virtue of Section 2 (29) of the Railway Act 1989, passenger means a person travelling by a train holding valid pass or ticket. By virtue of this, he cannot be said to be a passenger of the train. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to the claim made by them. Accordingly, this point is answered. 10. POINT No.1: When the 2nd point is answered against the applicants, there is no need to consider the 1st point. 11. POINT No.3: The Tribunal, in fact, examined the material properly and came to a right conclusion and there is no need to interfere with its order. 12. POINT No.4: In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 18-2-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.811 OF 2006 Dated 18-2-2011