IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 23-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.451 of 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND G.Hymavathi and others --- Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.451 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) to set aside order passed in O.A.A.No.240 of 2002 dated 25-02-2008 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, consequent on the death of Grandhe Harinath, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A.No.240 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicants, are as follows: On 30-06-2002 the deceased purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No.67022 at Markapuram road railway station with a view to go to Kurichepadu and boarded train No.405 Nandyal-Guntur passenger. At abut 06.00 a.m. when the train was leaving the platform of Markapuram Road railway station, he slipped and accidentally fell down from the train in motion at the end of the platform near the station name board and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The applicants being his wife, children and parents and dependants are entitled to the compensation. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants claiming that the deceased committed suicide and it was not an accidental fall or untoward incident within the scope of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and prayed 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 Grandhe Harinath? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.405 passenger travelling from Markapuram to Kurichedu on 30-06-2002? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Markapuram Road railway station? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them the wife of the deceased got herself examined as A.W.1. and an eye-witness was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. After considering the material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. has been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that even though according to A.W.2-eyewitness, the deceased purchased necessary ticket to travel by the train and as per Ex.A.2-inquest report the same was seized at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body but the ticket was not produced before the Tribunal which is fatal and the Tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 9. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1. Therefore, it is to be examined mainly as to: 1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or is not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants are entitled to necessary compensation or not? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and whether its order is tenable or not? 10. POINTS:- It is to be very much emphasised that as per Ex.A.2 at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body a second class ordinary ticket to travel from Markapuram to Kurichedu was recovered from the shirt of the deceased along with cash of Rs.800/- and further it is the evidence of A.W.2 that the deceased purchased a passenger train journey ticket to go to Kurichedu from Markapuram and after the train arrived, he(A.W.2) boarded a general compartment of the train along with his cousin by name M.Satyam and then he also saw the deceased boarding the same compartment and when the train was leaving Markapuram railway station, the deceased suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally at the end of the platform near name board and immediately he along with his cousin and some others got down from the train which was in motion and rushed to the spot. 11. Further as per Ex.A.1-F.I.R a message issued by station Superintendent, Markapuram to S.I., Government Railway Police, Nandyal that some travelling public reported that one male dead body aged about 35 years was lying on the main railway track. 12. The evidence of A.W.2 was not rebutted. Further as per the inquest report, he(A.W.2) was examined as a witness to the incident. Accordingly, the evidence of A.W.2 is to be accepted. When the evidence of A.W.2 is accepted along with the contents of the inquest report and F.I.R., it proves that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train. The tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. The points are answered accordingly. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL