The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. v. K. Suneetha and another

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.7 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 18-09-2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in O.A.A. No.130 of 2006, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one K. Saibaba @ Sai Srinivas (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.130 of 2006. 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 deceased along with his friends went to Yadagirigutta from Secunderabad on the morning of 07-02-2006 and had darshan of Lord Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy and later they went to the railway station at Secunderabad and aboarded in a general compartment in train No.M-167 Warangal – Hyderabad passenger, whereas the train ticket number of the deceased was 96856 and while traveling by the train, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train at Bibinagar railway station due to sudden jerks of the train and received injuries and later died. Further, he happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and as the applicants happened to be his wife and daughter are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. The respondent filed his written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants.

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 train No.M-167 Warangal – Hyderabad passenger traveling from Raigir to Secunderabad on 07-02-2006? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said 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-9 which happened to be relevant copies of journey ticket, F.I.R., Inquest Report and Post Mortem Examination Report, Death Certificate, Ration card, Death certificate of the father of the deceased, Ration Card and Election I.D. Card. Further, on behalf of the respondent none were examined and no documents were marked.

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the applicants and permitting the first applicant to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- with a direction to keep the remaining amount in her name in FDR in S.B.H. Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad for a period of three years and the share of the second applicant in F.D.R. in her name in the same bank till she attains the age of majority and further directing the respondent to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent- Railways.

8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue where as there is dispute about the findings given under the issues Nos.2 to 4.

9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that no original ticket of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal and it is claimed that the original ticket was kept with the Government Railway Police and only Xerox copy of the journey ticket was filed and as per the inquest report, concerned friends and relatives of the deceased were examined and none of them were examined to prove the question of accident and further two death certificates were filed and marked as Exs.A-5 and A-7, one provides that the deceased was Srinivas, S/o Ramachandra Kadingala and the other to the effect that he was Kadingula Saibaba alias Sai Srinivas which is not clarified and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and made incorrect observations and hence the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

10. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel in the train and further he was a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is sustainable or not?

11. Point No.1: There is no dispute about the accident. Initially it is to be seen that the deceased traveled by the train and when once that is done then it is to be examined as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train. At the time of trail, Xerox copy of the ticket was filed before the Tribunal. According to AW.1, the ticket was seized by the Government Railway Police at the time of inquest over the dead body. If that is true, the applicants could have taken necessary steps for the purpose of summoning the Government Railway Police for producing the ticket or could have obtained certified copy of it and produced it before the Tribunal. As per the inquest report, the original ticket bearing No.96856 was seized from the deceased, whereas without taking necessary steps to call for the ticket or a certified copy if it, it is difficult to uphold the contents of the inquest report that the ticket was seized from the possession of the deceased. Further as per the inquest report 7 persons were cited as witnesses but none of them were examined for which adverse inference is to be drawn. The inquest report further reads that the deceased fell down from the train accidentally holding valid ticket and received injuries and died and the guard of the train gave message to the same effect. But it is only to be used with regards to the nature of injuries and cause of death and seizure of any objects. Further it shows that with some interest to help those concerned such observations were made in the inquest whereas non examination of any witness cited in the inquest report is fatal in any case. Further, as contented by the respondents counsel two different names are given in Exs.A-5 and A-7 for the deceased which is not clarified. In the circumstances of the case, hence it is not proved that the deceased traveled by the train holding a valid ticket, therefore, it can not be said that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J ___________________________ Dated: 03-03-2011. Dsh.