IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.01-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.85 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Smt. B. Bhemakka and five others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.85 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 06-11-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.357 of 2003, 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 Boggarupu Sattaiah (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.357 of 2003. 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 applicants were the wife, parents and children of the deceased. On 03-10-2003 the deceased while traveling along with others in train No.7233 Bhagyanagar Express from Peddapalli to Sirpur Kagaznagar as a bona fide passenger by holding valid ticket bearing No.25078 due to sudden jerks of the train, slipped and fell down from the train at Peddapalli railway station and received injuries and died on the spot. Further, the deceased being a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants being his legal heirs and dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further he fell down from running train by his own negligence and carelessness which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries and no eye witness of the incident was examined and therefore 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 applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train? 3) Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the respondent, M. Venkata Rajam, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. 7. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that as per post mortem report, the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces and no other injuries were found and further no ticket of the deceased was seized from it, by which it is to be inferred that he did not fall down from the train and he came underneath the train by different means and it is important that his dead body was found at the loop line track BPQ (Balharsha), which circumstances prove that he was not a passenger of the train which disproves the claim of the applicants and further the Tribunal observed that he was a bona fide passenger of the train because the ticket was seized from him. 8. On the basis of the inquest report and DRM Report in which the concerned railway authorities admitted that the deceased might have traveled by the train and fell down and received injuries the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and directed respondent to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of the realization by apportioning Rs.1,45,000/- to the first applicant, Rs.65,000/- each to applicants 4 to 6 and Rs.30,000/- each to applicants 2 and 3 and further directed that first applicant to withdraw Rs.70,000/- and the remaining balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad for a period of three years. Further the applicants 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount of Rs.30,000/- each and the share amount of minor applicants 4 to 6 shall be kept in F.D.R.s in their respective names till they attain majority. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7233 Bhagyanagar Express? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not? 10. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is very significant that in the Divisional Railway Manager’s report it is clearly observed that it might be a case of fall from the train. While disproving that the deceased was having valid ticket but in the inquest report (Ex.A-3) it is noted that the ticket bearing No.25078 for Rs.19/- from Peddapalli to go to Sirpur Kagaznagar was seized from the body of the deceased. It also shows that inquest was conducted on 04-10-2003 at 09-00 a.m. the accident took place on 03-102-003. Further, as per the F.I.R. necessary information was received at 19-30 hours on 03-10-2003 and it was registered at 22-00 hours on 03-10-2003. So, there was delay of 12 hours in conducting the inquest subsequent to the registration of the case. The postmortem report provides that the petitioner received fractures of 4 ribs on the right side, injuries on his plural cavities apart from the total cut injuries which clearly suggests that he fell down from certain height and received injuries before his body was cut into pieces. This is quite possible when the deceased slipped and fell down from the train. Therefore, it is to be presumed that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions 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: 01-03-2011. Dsh.