IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.22-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4380 OF 2004 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Atmakuri Prasada Rao and four others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4380 OF 2004 JUDGEMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 20-09-2004, passed in O.A.A. No.103 of 2001, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Atmakuri Pushpavathi (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.103 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : The deceased along with her husband and other villagers started her journey on pilgrimage and visited several holy places finally Tirupathi and they started from Tirupathi on 20-03-2001 in the morning by 7405 Krishna Express after purchasing group journey ticket and when the train reached Ongole railway station, the first applicant got down from the train to bring water and since he did not return, the deceased in anxiety got up from her seat and went near a door in search of her husband and due to the jerks in the train, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in between the platform and the train and died on the spot. Further, she happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and as the applicants being her husband, daughters and sons and dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants and further claiming that the incident does not fall within the definition of untoward incident under Section 123 (c) (ii) or Section 124-A of Railways Act and the fall of the deceased was on account of her own negligence and as such the injury sustained by the deceased amounts to self inflicted injury which is an exemption under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and pleaded to dismiss the claim. 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 A. Pushpavathi? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7405 Express, traveling from Tirupati to Vijayawada? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Ongole railway station on 20-03-2001? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got him examined himself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest Report and original ticket, Death Certificate and Family Member Certificate. Further, on behalf of the respondent, S.A. Sattar, Passenger Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked the copy of Rough Journal as Ex.R-1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and granted the relief as prayed for directing to apportion Rs.4,00,000/- equally among themselves. Further, directing the respondent to deposit the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants within two months from the date of order failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that no independent ticket was filed before the Tribunal and no postmortem examination over the dead body was conducted and no report of Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 173 or 174 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the Tribunal and thus adequate evidence was not placed before the Tribunal in order to establish the cause of death of the deceased person and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence its order is liable to be set aside. 9. There is no dispute about any other findings given in the order of the Tribunal. 10. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel in the train and further she was a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the deceased fell down from the train due to her own negligence? 3) Whether the non conducting of the postmortem examination over the dead body is fatal? 11. According to AW.1, husband of the deceased, he along with the deceased and others traveled by the train holding a common ticket for all of them and at Ongole railway station he got down from the train for fetching water and his wife i.e., the deceased got down from the train to search her husband and got confused as he could not return immediately and then he got down from the train in search of her husband and later while she was trying to get into the train fell down in between the platform and train and the train ran over her and consequently she died on the spot. 12. According to RW.1, the guard of the train he saw one lady passenger falling down from the train. These circumstances amply prove that actually she fell down from the train and received injuries. There is no dispute ultimately about the group ticket taken for travel in the train. It must have been given to ticket collector eventually at the railway station. There is absolutely no evidence to disbelieve the evidence of AW.1 with regards to the travel. Therefore it must be accepted that the group ticket was purchased for the deceased and others. Further, there is no such dispute about the death of the deceased at the platform whereas it is significant that according to RW.1 he saw a lady passenger falling down from the train. When there is no such dispute about the cause of death, the question of non conducting postmortem over the dead boy is not fatal. Hence the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable. 13. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:22-03-2011. Dsh.