HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.873 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.207 of 1999 dated 17.10.2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the said O.A.A. For the convenience sake, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the application. The application is filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, r/w Section 124-A and 125 of Indian Railways Act, 1989, seeking the Tribunal to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, for the death of one M.Krishna, in an untoward incident of accidental fall from a train. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the wife, children and mother of the deceased. The deceased was a coolie on daily wages. On 28.06.1999, the deceased along with Mistry, Sanyasirao and some other coolies went for coolie work and while returning, all of them went to Gotlam railway station and purchased train journey tickets and boarded train No.239 Rayagada – Visakhapatnam passenger in its general compartment. The deceased had ticket bearing No.01065 in fact while traveling by the said train, at about 17.50 hrs when the train reached near Korukonda level crossing gate, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the train in motion due to speed and jerks of the train, and received multiple fracture injuries and died on the spot. Further, his ticket was seized by the GRP and kept in their records at Vizianagaram. Hence, the application. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicant and further claiming that no untoward incident took place at the said plotform on the relevant date and no train ticket of the deceased was produced to uphold the claim. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial on the basis of the material available. 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Moripi Krishna? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.239 Rayagada – Visakhapatnam passenger travelling from Gotlam to Korukonda on 28.6.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train near Korukond LC gate? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and one P.Sanyasi Rao got examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondent, its Gateman was examined as R.W.1 and one A.Narsing Rao, Relieving ASM, was examined as R.W.2, and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. The Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the applicants and held the other issues against the applicants and in favour of the respondent on the basis of material available on record. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. It is to be mainly examined as to whether sufficient evidence was placed by the applicants to the effect that the deceased travelled by the train and the respondent proved that he was not a bonafide passenger, and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions. Ex.A.1 a copy of relevant FIR. Ex.A.2 is a copy of relevant inquest report, which shows that inquest over the dead body was conducted between 9.30 hrs and 12.00 hrs on 29.06.1999 and a ticket was recovered from a pocket of the deceased. It is the testimony of RWs 1 and 2 that one II class ticket bearing No. 01065 was issued at Gotlam railway station on 28.06.1999 for train No.227 passenger and Ex.R.6 extract of DTC supports the same. Further, it is the evidence of R.W.2 that the train No.239 happened to be a fast passenger and does not have a stop at Gotlam station. Exs.R.2, R.4 and R.5 support the same in essence. Those documents also show that on the relevant date, the train No.239 passed through Gotlam station without any stop at 5.10 P.M, whereas train No.227 was stopped at Gotlam station at 22.23 hrs and departed at 22.27 hrs. There is no reason to disbelieve those documents and accordingly they are accepted and collected. Therefore, there was a gap of 5 hours 10 minutes between the departure of 239 fast passenger and arrival of 227 passenger at Gotlam station. If the ticket was issued for the earlier train, it is surprising as to why the deceased travelled in the later train, even though the later train got no stop at the place of his destination. Therefore, all these circumstances prove that the ticket was planted for the purpose of the case. Further therefore, it proves that the deceased did not travel by No.239 fast passenger, and he was not bonafide passenger of the train, and hence the claim of the applicants cannot be upheld. The Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to right conclusions, and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 28th February, 2011 PNV