THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.362 of 2006 ORDER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of dismissal passed in O.A.A.No.65 of 2000 dated 09.01.2006 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the application before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as applicants and respondent as arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The application was filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the applicants. 5. The claim of the applicants is that they happened to be the wife and children of one Hari babu (late) (for short the deceased). On 13.11.1999 the deceased boarded train No.681 passenger at about 2.15 PM at Seethaphalmandi Railway Station to go to Shamshabad and while boarding the train he fell down and received injuries and later he was taken to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, whereas he died on 04.12.1999 i.e. after ‘21’ days. Further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Hence, the application was filed. 6. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants. It is particularly claimed therein that no untoward incident was reported by any railway official on that day. Ultimately, the respondent prayed to dismiss the application. 7 . On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Haribabu? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger traveling from Sitaphalmandi to Shamshabad on 13.11.1999? 3. Whether the deceased has sustained injuries while boarding the train at 2.30 PM in an untoward incident at Sitaphalmandi and succumbed to the injuries in Gandhi Hospital on 04.12.1999 while undergoing treatment? 4. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the applicants, the 1st applicant got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6, which happened to be season ticket of the deceased, attested copy of G.D. entry in Crime No.128 of 1999 on the file of Government Railway Police, Secunderabad, translated copies of G.D.entry, translated copy of inquest panchanama, medical bills given in the Gandhi Hospital and family members certificate respectively. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 – Guard and R.W.2 – Booking clerk, who was Incharge of the railway station at Sitaphalmandi were examined and Ex.R.1 rough general of the railway station was marked. 9. The tribunal held the 1st issue in favour of the applicants and dismissed the application on the ground that no eye witness of the incident was examined and relevant inquest report was not marked, and no ticket was seized from the deceased and a report was given to the concerned police only after the death of the deceased on 05.12.1999 and R.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that no untoward incident took place on the relevant date. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred (with regards to the dismissal of the claim). 11. The points to be considered are: 1. Whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased was or was not a bonafide passenger of the train? 2. Whether the tribunal examined the matter and came to the conclusion properly and the order passed by the tribunal is sustainable or not? P O I N T No.1: 12. It is important that no eyewitness was examined about the incident before the tribunal. Further, it is important that the record shows that only 21 days after the incident and also pursuant to the death of the deceased, the case was registered by the concerned police and there is no evidence as to why necessary measures were not taken in between, which disprove the claim. Further, original inquest report and Post mortem report were not marked about the nature of injuries of the deceased and cause of death. Further, R.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that no untoward incident took place on the relevant date at Seethaphalmandi Railway platform. The evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 is quite acceptable. They got no need to give false evidence being railway employees who have no personal interest in the matter. Therefore, the circumstances enumerated amply prove that he was not a bonafide passenger of the train. 13. Even though the season ticket was filed to show that the deceased had it for travel from Seethaphalmandi to Shamshabad, it is of no use for the reasons enumerated when his travel in the train is not proved. In other words, it would have been very much useful if it is proved that he actually traveled in the train. P O I N T No.2: 14. The tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 28th February, 2011 KSP