C.M.A No. 199 of 2006 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. To what relief?” On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material available on record, insofar as issue…
Judgment
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against an order made in O.A.A.No.218 of 1999 dated 26.10.2005 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by respondents/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of
the husband of the first applicant, namely, Sri K.Jaya Rama Naidu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) in an untoward incident of accidental from Train No.2841 Coromandel Express on
07.08.1988, was allowed. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. It appears the applicants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act r/w Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased while travelling in Train No.2841 Coromandel Express on
07.08.1998 along with his maternal uncle-Mallarapu Bathaiah with valid ticket accidentally slipped and fell down from the train when it was entering on Platform No.1, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. He was admitted in the Government Hospital at Gudur and when he was being shifted to Tirupati in ambulance he succumbed to injuries. As the deceased died due to an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, the applicants claimed compensation. The Railways resisted the claim and denied the allegations made by the applicants stating that there was no scope for a person to fall down while coming from toilets, unless he leaned out from the door step or attempted to alight from running train. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Kankalapati Jayarama Naidu?
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.2841 Howrah- Chennai Coromandel express travelling from Vijayawada to Chennai
13.08.1998?
Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train?
Operative part
To what relief?” On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material available on record, insofar as issue No.1 was concerned held that the applicants were the dependents of the deceased. On issue No.2 held that in this case, unfortunately, a co-passenger died before conducting the inquest, and therefore, a presumption is to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Further, though ticket was not found on the body of the deceased, it cannot be said that non-recovery of ticket from the deceased person cannot have any adverse effect in view of the settled law. On issue No.3 held that it was an untoward incident of accidental fall from train. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the application awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the respondent- Railways. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only question that needs to be considered in this appeal is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not? A.W.1 categorically stated that when the deceased was travelling along with his maternal uncle, who is no more now, the accident occurred and when the deceased was being shifted from Gudur Hospital to S.V.V.R Hospital, Tirupati, in ambulance, he died on the way. In the inquest report, the Station Master stated that the deceased had fallen on platform No.1. There was no rebuttal evidence proving that the deceased died by criminal act of his own and there was every reason to believe that the deceased had fallen accidentally, which attract the untoward incident of accidental fall. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased tried to get down at Gudur Railway Station and had fallen down, where there was no halt for the said train, cannot be taken into consideration, particularly, in the absence of any cross-examination of A.W.1 and producing any evidence. In the absence of any cross-examination of the Station Master, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Date: 13.08.2010 _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — s. 23; Indian Railways Act, 1989.
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.