Union of India v. Sk.Sasleemun & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. To what relief? In support of the case of applicants, first applicant and fourth applicant who are wife and son of the deceased were examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and they summoned the train Guard and he was examined as A.W.3 marked documents Exs.A1…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1186 of 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order made in O.A.A.No.145 of 1999 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Sk.Ghouse, who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the Train, was allowed. Appellant is South Central Railway and respondents are applicants-claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. Applicants filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of deceased Sk.Ghouse who is alleged to have died due to accidental fall from the train. According to the applicants, on the night of 2/3.5.1999 the deceased accompanied by his son Sk.Saleem (fourth applicant) while traveling from Guntur to Secunderabad by Train No.7055 Narsapur-Hyderabad Express in general compartment holding two train tickets, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at KM No.19/13-14 between Mandapadu and Siripuram Railway Stations, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The Respondent-Railway denied the incident as untoward incident and put the applicants to strict proof of the allegations. It is stated that the dead body of a male person aged 60 years was seen by Keyman at KM No.19/11 at 10.15 hrs. on 3.5.1999 whose death was not on account of fall from the train as seen from the spot of the incident. The conclusions reached by the panch witnesses in the inquest report to the effect that the deceased slipped and fell down as the door hit him due to jerks is false and baseless since panchas are not eye witnesses to the incident. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:
Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Shaik Ghouse?
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger by the Train No.7055 Narsapur – Hyderabad Express traveling from Guntur to Secunderabad on 2.5.1999?
Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Mandapadu and Siripuram Railway Stations?
To what relief? In support of the case of applicants, first applicant and fourth applicant who are wife and son of the deceased were examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and they summoned the train Guard and he was examined as A.W.3 marked documents Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, respondent-Railway examined the Station Master of Siripuram Railway Station as R.W.1 and marked documents Exs.R1 and R2. On a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Railway Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased and the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.7055 Narsapur – Hyderabad Express traveling from Guntur to Secunderabad on 2.5.1999. It was further held that the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the Train, therefore applicants are entitled for compensation and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- . Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent-Railways preferred the present appeal.
The facts are not much in dispute. The deceased was taking his son A.W.2 to Hyderabad for attending an interview in response to Ex.A1 call letter. A.W.2, who was traveling along with deceased, has categorically stated that he noticed the deceased falling from the train when the train passing through Mandapadu and that he made attempt to stop the train, but the train had stopped only after reaching Siripuram Railway Station, where there is no schedule halt. A.W.2 further stated that he discontinued his journey at Siripuram Railway Station and reported the matter to R.W.1-Station Master. The Tribunal below gave a finding that the very presence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 along with another son at the time of inquest would establish that they are aware of the fact that the deceased had fallen from the train and therefore right from the previous night till the time of tracing out the dead body of the deceased they were making efforts and ultimately at 12 noon they got information from the railway officials and the police that a dead body was traced out in between Bandarupalli and Siripuram i.e. at KM No.19/13-14.
Thus, the Tribunal held that the deceased had fallen from the train between Mandapadu and Siripuram Railway Stations while proceeding from Guntur to Secunderabad by Train No.7055 Narsapur – Hyderabad Express accompanied by A.W.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal on all the issues require no interference by this Court. The CMA is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 3.9.2010 DA
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — s. 23; Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 — s. 16; Indian Railways Act, 1989.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 03 Sep 2010. The bench was C V RAMULU.
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.