THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 91 OF 2009 Between: Union of India, rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad …. Appellant A n d Hastimal Jain and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 91 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, ‘the RCT Act’), aggrieved by order dated 17.10.2008 in O.A.A. No.246 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants in the application. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as they are arrayed in the application. 3. The said application was filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on accidental death of one Jeetendra Kumar Jain, son of the 1st & 3rd applicants and husband of the 2nd applicant. 4. According to the applicants, on 15.04.2003, the deceased while traveling by Train No.2711-Pinakini Express from Tenali to Chennai, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at the same Railway Station and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. 5. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and further asserting that the deceased jumped out in order to commit suicide and fell on the railway track and then the train ran over him and therefore the application should be dismissed. 6. The Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the applicants, the 1st applicant got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence adduced, upheld the claim of the applicants granting the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the respondents to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the order, otherwise to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 9. There is no dispute about the findings given under the 1st issue, whereas there is dispute about the findings given under remaining issues. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train or not, and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions. 10. It is the contention of the respondents advocate that RWs.1 and 2 clearly deposed that the deceased jumped on to the track with an intention to commit suicide which fall within the scope of the exception provided under Section 124 of the Railways Act and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence, its order is liable to be set aside. 11. There is no dispute about the travel of the deceased holding valid ticket in the train. Therefore, it is to be held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train. It is then for the respondent to establish its claim that the deceased jumped on to the track and received injuries and died on the spot. Without examining any eye witnesses, the claim of the respondents cannot be upheld. RWs.1 and 2 admitted that they were not eye witnesses to the incident. No explanation is given as to why no eye witness was examined about the incident. The criteria is only as to whether he was holding valid ticket to travel by the train or not unless it is proved that he jumped on to the track in order to commit suicide and received injuries, which in fact is not proved. Accordingly, the point is answered. 12. The Tribunal properly examined the mater and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. For the reasons enumerated, there are no merits in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. ________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 21st March, 2011 Rns