IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1034 of 2004 Between: Bonala Venkateswara Rao and another ..... APPELLANTS AND The Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, at Secunderabad .…. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed to set aside order dated 21-01-2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, in O.A.A.No.37 of 2000. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants in the said application. The appellants filed the application under Section 123 (C) or 124A of Railway Claims Tribunal Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of Bonala Nageswara Rao in the railway accident in question. The appellants are the parents of the deceased. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application. 3. The case of the applicants is that on 28-01-2000 the deceased accompanied by Tata Veeraraju with a view to go to Nidadavolu, went to Eluru railway station and purchased journey tickets from Eluru to Nidadavolu and boarded general compartment in EMU 161 Vijayawada – Rajahmundry passenger train (holding ticket with No.03371). During the travel when the train was halting at Tadepalligudem at about 21.45 hours the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally and came under the wheels of the train and sustained severe multiple injuries and died instantaneously. Further the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. Hence the application. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application. Further it is pleaded that as per the inquest report the deceased fell down while attempting to alight for drinking water but in fact the Assistant Station Master, Tadepalligudem was informed by some traveling public after passing 161 passenger that they found one dead body aged about 25 years on road No.1 on down loop line in the yard near electrical pump house. A further submission has been made that if the claim of the applicants is true he would not have fallen underneath the train ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the application. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger ? 2. Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of fall from the train ? 3. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased ? 4. To what relief ? 6. On behalf of the applicants Aws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 which happened to be Xerox copy of the ticket, copy of relevant F.I.R., copy of relevant inquest report, copy of relevant post mortem examination report, relevant death certificate, no objection certificate and copy of final report respectively. On behalf of the respondent Deputy Station Superintendent, Tadepalligudem, was examined as RW-1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3 which happened to be extract of Guard’s Journal, memo of the Station Superintendent and extract of the station diary respectively. Further the Tribunal called the original documents and got marked them as Exs.C-1 to C-4 which happened to be relevant original First Information Report, part I statement, part-II statement and inquest report respectively. 7. Basing on the evidence available on record, the lower Court held the issue No.3 in favour of the applicants and issue Nos.1 and 2 against the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. It is to be mainly considered as to whether there is substantial evidence to show that the deceased happened to be a passenger of the train and he was a bonafide passenger of the train and involved in the said untoward incident. 9. Here the evidence of AW-2 –Tata Veerraju is very important. His evidence is that on 28-01-2000 during early hours he went to Eluru from Nidadavolu on business work and on the same day he went to Eluru railway station and purchased ticket and went to the platform and waited for train and in the meanwhile his friend and neighbour Nageshwara Rao, the deceased came there and later they boarded general compartment of EMU 161 passenger train at 6.00 p.m., and when the train was halting at Tadepalligudem at 21.45 hours both of them were ready to get down from the train but the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally and went underneath the wheels of the train and died on the spot and the train halted after passing some distance and then he got down and rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased and immediately some Railway staff and some passengers gathered and he was asked about necessary particulars of the deceased by the Station Staff and then he went outside and informed on phone his uncle at Nidadavolu about the accident and asked him to convey the message to the parents of the deceased and then returned to the railway station and approached the Station Master who directed him to approach in the matter the Railway Police. Further concerned police held inquest over the dead body in the presence of himself and others and then journey ticket was found in the pant pocket of the deceased by the railway Police. 10. On the other hand it is the testimony of RW-1 – Deputy Station Superintendent, Tadepalligudem that on 28-01-2000, the passenger train 161 arrived at 21.20 hours and left at 21.45 hours and at 22.30 hours some people who were standing on the platform came to him and informed him that a dead body was found on the down loop line and thereby he gave the same message to the Railway Police at 22.45 hours suspecting that the deceased was run over by 161 passenger. 11. RW-2, the Guard of the train stated that no untoward incident took place at the platform and no one informed him about the incident and his evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of RW-1 about the halt and departure of the train. 12. As per Ex.A-1 the message was sent by RW-1 at 22.45 hours on 28-01-2000 to the incharge G.R.P. As per the inquest report inquest was conducted over dead body on 29-01-2000 between 8 to 10 hours during morning time in the presence of mediators including AWs.1 and 2 and others and they opined that the deceased received injuries having slipped and fell down from the train. But the inquest is admissible only so far as the opinion regarding the cause of death and nature of injuries and also with regard to seizure of any material object then are concerned. As per Ex.A-7 the case was referred as accidental. 13. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the evidence of AW-1 is quite acceptable and there is no reason to reject it and the Tribunal failed to consider the material available properly and passed in-correct order. It is further submitted that the applicants may be awarded interest as per the decision reported in 2009 (7) SCC 372 (THAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER). 14. If any untoward incident was taken place the guard of the train would have come to know and informed the same to the Station House Authorities followed by taking place of necessary consequential measures. It is un-believable that the incident was un-noticed by anybody. It is pertinent to note that admittedly AW-2 did not give any report to anybody immediately about the accident. Further his evidence that after the incident he went outside for the purpose of passing necessary information to the relatives of the deceased without taking immediate steps at the platform is quite un-natural and hence his evidence is un-believable. Another important factor is non-filing of the original ticket before the Tribunal. If it was traced at the time of inquest why it was not filed and only a Xerox copy of it was filed. It was not difficult to obtain some general ticket and obtain a Xerox copy of it and file it before the Tribunal for the purpose in question. Further according to the inquest report the deceased sustained only one cut injury on his waist. In case the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally and went underneath the wheels of the train he would have sustained other injuries all over his body. Therefore, in such circumstances there is no scope to accept that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries. So I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal below. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J February 03, 2011 Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1034 OF 2004 February 03, 2011