IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.04-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3993 OF 2003 Between: N. Satyavathi and three others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3993 OF 2003 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 04-10-2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in O.A.A. No.170 of 1999, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one N. Suryanarayana (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.170 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The case of the applicants is as follows : The applicants happened to be the wife and children of the deceased. On 23-05-1999 the deceased along with one P. Bullidora aboarded in a general compartment of train No.2841 Howrah – Chennai Coromandal express at Kharagpur to travel up to Visakhapatnam holding a valid ticket and on the morning of 24-05- 1999 he slipped and fell down from the train accidentally at KM 871/17-19 between Simhachalam and Marripalem railway stations, sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Further, the deceased being a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants who happened to be his wife and children and as such dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming in any case, it would come within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and ultimately the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Nagam Suryanarayana? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2841 Howrah – Chennai Coromandal Express traveling fro Kharagpur to Visakhapatnam on 23-05-1997? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Simhachalam and Marripalem Railway stations? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and also got examined one P. Bullidora as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R, Inquest Report, Post mortem report, M.R.O. Certificate, Legal Heir Certificate and original photos. Further, on behalf of the respondent, L.V.S. Prasad, Deputy Station Superintendent, Simhachalm railway station was examined as AW.1 and also got examined G. Eswarudu, Gateman, Gopalpatnam as AW.2 after receiving their sworn affidavits and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3 which happened to be a Memo of the Station Superintendent, Station Diary Extract and latter of the Station Superintendent dated 25-08-1999. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the issues Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the respondent and dismissed the claim on the ground it was not proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train giving reasons. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger/not a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is sustainable or not? 9. Point No.1: It is contended on behalf of the applicants that evidence was adduced to the effect that the deceased and P. Bullidora went to Kharagpur on 23-05-1999 and there the deceased aboarded in a general compartment of the train holding valid ticket and on the way in between Simhachalam and Marripalem railway stations, the deceased slipped and fell down and received serious injuries and died on the spot and the inquest report and post mortem examination report coupled with the F.I.R amply establish that he received the injuries only by a fall from the train and in the accident the ticket of the deceased might have been lost which cannot be a ground to dismiss the application and it is only for the respondent to establish the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train but it failed to establish the same and the lower Court dismissed the application on flimsy grounds and therefore the order is not tenable. 10. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the Tribunal is proper and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. AWs.1 and 2 deposed as to what according to them transpired prior to the deceased leaving their place and AW.2 also deposed about going to Kharagpur and purchasing a ticket for the deceased and the deceased leaving Kharagpur by Coromandal express and coming to know about the accident subsequently. As per the F.I.R. on 25-05-2999 at 01-00 p.m. the information was received to the effect that the incident took place prior to 06-30 a.m. on that day and on a report given by the Station Superintendent the case was registered. Further, as per the inquest report as in Ex.A-2 on 25-05-1999 in between Simhachalam and Marripalem railway stations at KM.871/17- 18, the dead body of the deceased was found and then noticed injuries on his fore-head and other parts of his body and those injuries were afresh in nature. Further, as per the postmortem report as in Ex.A-3, the same examination was conducted on 26-01-1999 from 09-00 a.m. and then found serious injuries on his body and it was opined that the incident occurred 36-48 hours prior to the examination, there is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the postmortem report in the circumstances enumerated. Further, the inquest report can be made use of only to ascertain the nature of injuries and cause of death and usually non technical people give opinion as mediators under inquest reports and therefore the corresponding post mortem reports including opinions arrived at there under with regards to cause of death by concerned medical officers who happened to be technical persons ought to be weighed more. Therefore, what is noted in the inquest report that the injuries were fresh when the inquest was conducted over the dead body on 25-05-1999 can not be accepted to be true and correct. Further, when once the postmortem report is accepted it agrees with the claim of the applicants that the accident took place on 24-05-1999 in between Simhachalam and Marripalem railway stations. Further, as per the inquest report, concerned police seized cash of Rs.155/-, clothes, wrist watch, slippers and a belt of the deceased. Further, AW.2 deposed that a wrist watch of the deceased was handed over by the police whereas the inquest report does not give the same picture. Further AW.2 stated in his chief-examination that the deceased purchased ticket from Kharagpur to Visakhapatnam and in his cross-examination he deposed that he purchased ticket from Kharagpur to Visakhapatnam. Further, AW.2 stated in his affidavit that they left Dhanbad at 12-30 p.m. on 23-05-1999 and reached Kharagpur by road by 02-00 p.m, whereas it is argued that it was impossible to cover the distance within one and half hours. Further, in fact basing upon these inconsistencies, the evidence of AW.2 was rejected by the Tribunal. Further, as per the evidence of AWs. 1 and 2 the dead body was traced only on 25-05-1999 at the track following which necessary measures were taken. In fact it is observed by the Tribunal that when the deceased fell down from the train on 24-05- 1999 and received injuries and died on the spot, it is unbelievable that it was not noticed by any railway person or any other person whereas number of trains would have passed through that track during 24-05- 1999 and 25-05-1999 and basing upon the postmortem report the entire story was created for the benefit of the applicants even though the death occurred in a different way and in fact the postmortem report would provide that the injuries were caused in a different way. 12. Examining the evidence adduced in my opinion, the discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of AW.2 can be termed as minor and natural in my opinion which therefore need not be taken seriously. What is important is that according to the postmortem examination report the deceased received very serious injuries which must have been occurred in a accident. In fact it provides that he received number of injuries which were possible by fall from a running vehicle and then rolling over the track or by the side of the track. If the accident took place in a different vehicle, accordingly the claim petition would have been filed before the concerned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal for necessary compensation. Therefore, it suggests that he was involved only in a railway accident. Further, the evidence of AW.1 clearly provides that the deceased along with AW.2 left for Dhanbad for business purpose whereas the evidence of AW.2 corroborates her evidence and also other consequential circumstances. Further, when such a ghastly accident took place and the deceased received such serious injuries, it must be that his ticket was lost. Further when the circumstances of the case prove that he traveled by the train from a long distance, it is quite probable that he traveled by the train with ticket. There is no recorded evidence that the concerned key man checked the railway lines during those two days. Therefore it need be accepted what is observed that if the claim of the applicants is true, the dead body would have been noticed during that period. Therefore for the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to uphold the claim of the applicants and reject the observations made by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim. 13. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that with regards to the question of interest a review petition was filed before the Supreme Court corresponding to the retrospectiveness of judgment passed in T.P. Sarabi case[1] and hence the interest payable from the date of application till the date or order may be retained pending disposal of the said Case. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of decree and thereafter 9% per annum till the date of realization of the amount. In view of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the interest payable from the date of order till the date of decree is to be retained pending disposal of the said case before the Honourable Supreme Court. Further, the compensation amount is apportioned at Rs.2,50,000/- to the first applicant and Rs.50,000/- each to the applicants Nos.2 to 4. No order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 04-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2009 2 ACJ 2444