C.M.A No. 1711 of 1999 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
On 28.10.1996, a person, by name Ramaiah, was travelling in train No.8090 Aleppi - Bokari Steel City Express between Samalkot and Bobbili Railway Station. While alighting the train at Bobbili railway station, he slipped and accidentally fell down, due to jerk and sudden movement of the train. He died on the spot. The respondents herein filed O.A.A.No.94 of 1997 before Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming to be the son and daughter of the deceased and prayed for compensation. The claim was opposed by the appellant, raising some dispute, as to identity and occurrence of the accident. Through its order, dated
17.07.1998, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation, on account of the death of the deceased and apportioned the same between respondents 1 and 2. The same is
challenged in this appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Heard Sri C.Venkata Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri N.Pardha Sarad hy, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents specifically pleaded that their father Ramaiah died in an untoward incident that has taken place, on 28.10.1996. The death of the deceased is evidenced through the inquest report, marked as Ex.A.2, and other connected records. The 1st respondent deposed as PW.1 and he identified that the deceased was his father. No evidence, to the contrary, was adduced, nor there exist any rival claims. Once the occurrence of the accident and the relationship of the respondents with the deceased, is established, there was no other alternative for the Tribunal, except to award compensation. The effort made by the respondents to seek enhancement of the compensation did not fructify, since the application for condonation of delay is said to have been dismissed. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated:19.08.2009. GJ ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.