C.M.A No. 1229 of 2005 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Whether the applicant is the sole the deceased Chokka dependent of Suramma?

Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Train No. 7487 Tirumala Express Pitapuram on 6/7.8.2001? from Chirala traveling

Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Km 340/10?

To what relief? The applicant examined himself as AW-1 through whom sworn affidavit dated 23.12.2003 was filed and the documents Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. AW-2 was also examined on behalf of the applicant. Whereas, Guard of the Train was examined as RW-1 on behalf of the Railways. However, neither of them was cross-examined. After careful consideration of the entire material, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant was a dependent of the deceased under Section 123(b)(i) of the Railways Act and the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Tirumala Express on 6/7.8.2001 and she was traveling from Chirala to Pithapuram. Ticket No. 35132623 was also mentioned in the inquest report, having been recovered from the body of the deceased. Respondent-Railways have not disputed the genuineness of the ticket. Therefore, it was held that she was a bona fide passenger. Further, it was held that Chokka Suramma died due to an untoward incident of accidental fall from passenger train. Therefore, the Tribunal held that applicant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant Sri BHR Chowdary strenuously contended that firstly there was no reason why a lady passenger (deceased) boarded the train and the husband and father of the deceased were left over. This itself shows that the deceased was not traveling by holding any valid ticket and the ticket was a planted one. But, however, absolutely there was no evidence to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In fact, in the inquest report, ticket No.35132623 was noted to have been recovered from the body of the deceased. Apart from that, the other tickets held by father and husband of the deceased were also not in dispute. The fact that the accident occurred on the platform when the train reached Chirala Railway Station on 6/7.8.2001 is also not in dispute. In the absence of any contra evidence, the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant cannot be disbelieved and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant and came to the conclusion on the basis of both oral and documentary evidence that the applicant was a dependent, deceased was a bona fide passenger and the accident that occurred was an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 12-8-2010. MVB.