THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.68 of 2007 JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsel on record. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act against the order dated 27.04.2006 made in O.A.A.No.266 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 3. The learned counsel representing the appellant-railways had pointed out ground Nos.2 to 11 in the grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the light of the said grounds, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondents would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal_:- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad is to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 6. POINT NO:1- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as the applicants and respondent as shown in O.A.A.No.266 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter in short referred to as “The Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 7. This application is filed by one Gadi Vijaya Krishnaveni/first applicant and others for compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of her husband by name G. Ramarao (hereinafter in short referred to as “the deceased” for the purpose of convenience) in an untoward incident of accidental fall. It is pleaded that on 04.09.2001, the deceased was returning to Eluru from Vijayawada by train No.2704 Falaknuma Express and after he got down at Eluru railway station while he was coming to Platform No.1 he sustained multiple injuries due to sudden explosion on the platform and he died on the spot and the ticket is alleged to have been lost in the accident. 8. The Respondent-Railways had admitted that there was an explosion on Eluru Platform near S-2 coach of Falaknuma Express after its arrival, but denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that his death was due to an untoward incident. 9. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Gadi Ramarao @ Rambabu? (2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? (3) Whether the deceased was a victim of an untoward incident and died in an explosion at Eluru railway station after arrival of Falaknuma Express? (4) To what relief? 10. The first applicant was examined herself as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. The respondent/appellant herein had relied on the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and the document under Ex.R.1 filed by them. 11. This Court had gone through the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal at paras 6 and 7. Apart from this aspect of the matter, this question, in fact, had been answered by this Court in C.M.A.No.2127 of 1997 and Batch. 12. In the light of the same, since no other points had been argued before this Court, inasmuch as, the findings had been recorded by the learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence available on record in proper perspective, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 13. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: 08.07.2010 bud