THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.921 of 2006 JUDGMENT:- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act against the order dated 05.06.2006 made in O.A.A.No.126 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. Though the respondents had been served none represents them. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had taken this Court through the ground Nos.2 to 13 of the grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the light of the elaborate grounds, which had been arise in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the appeal to be allowed. 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 set aside 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 applicant and respondent as shown in O.A.A.No.126 of 2000 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. The case of the applicant, who is minor, represented by the guardian-natural grandfather, reads as follows:- “It is stated that one R. Bhadramma, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased” for the purpose of convenience) purchased II class journey ticket bearing No.16883 to go from Khammam to Dornakal on 2.3.00 and boarded Train No. 7057 Chochin-Bilashpur Express for her journey without knowing that the said train had no schedule halt at Dornakal Railway Station. While traveling, she stood at the door and wanted to alight at Dornakal railway station. When it halts there, while waiting to alight, she had slipped and fell down at “A” cabin, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. The railway staff noticed her lying by the said of track and the railway police was called for to shift her to hospital but she died on the way to hospital. Attributing it as an untoward incident, the claim petition is filed on behalf of the deceased’s minor son represented by the guardian, who is the natural grandfather.” 8. The respondent-railways no doubt, denied the liability or payment of any compensation. 9. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Repakula Bhadramma? (2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.7057 Cochin-Bilaspur Express on 2.3.2000? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Dornakal Railway Station? (4) To what relief? 10. It is needless to say that the respondent in O.A.A. is the appellant herein. 11. Before the learned Tribunal, A.W.1, who was the guardian of the minor applicant, was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 had been marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined. The learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence of A.W.1 and R.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and recorded appropriated reasons. 12. It was stated by A.W.1 that the deceased-Bhadramma, who is his daughter was married to one Govind about 12 years back but the marriage was dissolved as per customs and on dissolution of her marriage she married another person by name K. Venkataiah and through whom the minor applicant was born and that her second husband also abandoned the deceased within a short time and that his whereabouts are not known till this date. Since, then he was looking after daughter and the minor at his native place. He further deposed that though the surname of the minor is “Kondepalli” but his surname is adopted as Repakula and on his surname the village secretary issued family members certificate Ex.A.6. Under Hindu Law there are different castes and sub-casts. In Sudra castes, the dissolution of marriage is permissible as per customs in the presence of elders and second marriage is also permissible. So the statement of A.W.1 about his daughter’s marriage with two persons and customary divorce may be accepted in the absence of any rival claim by any one. Whenever any unscrupulous husband abandons his wife and children, it is natural that the deserted would go to and take shelter with parents. So in that situation when the applicant was brought up by A.W.1, the surname for maternal side is adopted and such instances are not uncommon in rural areas. When Ex.A.6 legal heir ship certificate is issued by Grampanchayat authority, it has its legal validity to consider that the minor applicant as heir and dependent of the deceased- Bhadramma for the purpose of the claim irrespective of the fact that there is a discrepancy in the actual surname. 13. Apart from this, the evidence available on record had been appreciated by the leaned Tribunal in proper perspective and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the claim of the applicant can be allowed. 14. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no legal infirmity warranting interference with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 15. 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