HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.918 of 2006 Date: 04.02.2011 Between: Smt. Siriseti Anasuya and another …..Petitioners. And: Union of India represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ……. Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.918 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Indian Railways Act to set aside order of granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 22-6-2006 in favour of the respondents/applicants following the death of one S. Rajanna, i.e., husband and father of the 1st and 2nd applicants, respectively, in O.A.A. No.320 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad which was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the Tribunal. The respondent denies the case of the applicants. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Sireseti Rajanna? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7234 Bhagyanagar Express, travelling from Odela to Bhongir on 22.09.2001? 3) 4) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train between Potkapalli and Bisgurshariff Railway Stations? 5) To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, the first applicant, wife of the deceased, got examined herself as AW.1 and examined one Sammaiah as AW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. On the basis of the material available, both the issues were held in favour of the applicants. There is no dispute about the first issue. There is dispute about the second issue, particularly with regards to accepting the evidence of AW.2 about the factum of the accident and other relevant circumstances. Having gone through the record, it is found by this Court that AW.2 was not cross examined before the tribunal and his deposition also does not reveal that on behalf of the respondent, it was reported as “cross examination nil”. It appears that due to inadvertency, the question of cross- examination of AW.2 was not considered on behalf of the respondent. It is a well established principle of law that without cross examination of witnesses, it is not proper to consider their chief examinations to decide any fact in issue. Hence, it is to be seen that AW.2 is cross-examined which can be done by remanding the matter to the tribunal giving necessary directions. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the tribunal with a direction to the tribunal to give opportunity to the respondent to cross examine A.W.2 and then decide the matter afresh leaving apart the finding under issue No.1 about which there is no dispute. Further, because the matter has become very old, the tribunal is directed to dispose the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. _____________________________________ Justice G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 4-2-2011. Dvs/Ksm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.918 of 2006 Date: 04.02.2011