IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.230 OF 2007 Between: Sunka Rajamma. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.230 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 11-12-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.77 of 2002, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 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 S. Mallikarjuna (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.77 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicant is as follows : The applicant is unmarried sister of the deceased. The deceased being a physically handicapped person along with his attendant namely S. Malayadri to go to Chennai from Ongole purchased a journey ticket bearing No.38920404 for train No.6003 Howrah – Chennai Mail for both of them on 18-10-2001 and the attendant of the deceased boarded the train and when the deceased was just aboarding the train, the train which was heavily crowded started suddenly with jerks, due to which the deceased lost balance and fell down accidentally in between the platform and the train, received multiple injuries and while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital succumbed to the injuries on 19-01-2001. Further, the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train. Further the applicant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement totally denying the claim of the applicant ascertaining that there was no eye witness to the incident and that the incident took place due to his own negligence which would amount to causing self inflicted injuries which is an exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such the application should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, she got herself examined as A.W.1 and also got examined one S. Malyadri, said to be the co-passenger and attendant of the deceased as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A- 7. Further, on behalf of the respondent nobody was examined and no document was marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicant and the remaining issues against the applicant and in favour of the respondent and dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that the applicant with a mala fide intention created an imaginary case of accidental fall of the deceased totally depending on the evidence of AW.2 to support her false claim and as such the death of the deceased would not come within the meaning of untoward incident under section 123 (c) (2) of the Act. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the applicant. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue where as there is dispute regarding the findings given under the issues Nos.2 to 4. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that as per Ex.A-4, the ticket was issued on 11-39 p.m. on concessional rate and Ex.A-5 happened to be concessional pass bearing No.36904 pertaining to the deceased and as per the relevant procedure the concessional pass should have been shown to the concerned booking clerk supplying a copy of it to him and only basing on that the ticket was to be issued which the railway can prove or disprove producing relevant record but they failed to do so for which adverse inference is to be drawn. Further, even supposing that the evidence of AW.2 as discredited by the Tribunal is true, still there are other circumstances to uphold the claim of the applicant. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that as per the relevant procedure, the deceased would have been escorted by a third person and the issuance of the ticket by itself does not mean that it was purchased by the deceased only and according to AW.2 he did not see the deceased falling down from the train and even after the accident he continued to travel by the train and returned three days later, which clearly disproves that he followed the deceased in the train as escort. It is also his contention that the final report speaks that the deceased got no valid ticket. 10. There is no dispute that the said procedure was to be followed while issuing ticket to a physically handicapped person. It must have been done making necessary entries in the relevant record. If that relevant record is produced the truth will come to light. If such a procedure is there the burden is totally on the Railways to produce such record and disprove the claim of the applicant without that, it is difficult to properly adjudicate the matter. Hence, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal for necessary consideration as per the observations made above. In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside the matter is remanded to the tribunal to dispose of the matter taking into consideration the observations made above. So far as the findings under the first issue are concerned, no cross objections are filed and hence the same stands good and need not be considered again. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 03-03-2011. Dsh.