Telangana High Court
Smt. B. Varalakshmi Ano vs Union Of India on 26 December, 2018
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.147 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is filed by the appellants- applicants challenging the order, dated 29.03.2012, passed in O.A.A.No.303 of 2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad ('the Tribunal', for brevity), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellants claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Samba Murthy Raju (husband and father of the applicants) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from G.T.Express train between Pedavadlapudi and Duggirala railway stations while travelling from Vijayawada to Chennai on the intervening night of 1/2.03.2003.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants-applicants would contend that the deceased-Samba Murthy Raju died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from G.T.Express train between Pedavadlapudi and Duggirala railway stations while travelling from Vijyawada to Chennai on the intervening night of 1/2.03.2003; the evidence of A.W.2-co-pasenger of the deceased reveals the same; in spite of ample evidence on record, the Tribunal declined to grant compensation to the applicants and was pleased to dismiss the claim application, which is erroneous; there is infirmity in the impugned order -2- passed by the Tribunal; and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation in favour of the appellant-applicant by allowing the appeal.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways would contend that the dead body was not identified; there is discrepancy with regard to the age of the deceased; there is no single document to substantiate that the dead body belong to Samba Murthy Raju and also to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of G.T.Express train while travelling from Vijayawada to Chennai on the intervening night of 1/2.03.2003 and succumbed to the injuries; the Tribunal rightly considered the entire evidence on record and dismissed the claim application; the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence and record; there is no infirmity in the impugned order; and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:-
1. Whether the deceased-Samba Murthy Raju was a bona fide passenger of the G.T.Express train and died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train while travelling from Vijayawada to Chennai on 1/2.03.2003?
2. Whether the appellants-applicants are entitled to any compensation as claimed?
3. Whether the impugned order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside?
4. To what relief?
Points 1 to 4:
6. The case of the applicants is that the deceased- Samba Murthy Raju died in an untoward incident of accidental -3- fall from G.T.Express on the intervening night of 1/2.03.2003 while travelling from Vijayawada to Chennai 1/2.03.2003. To substantiate the claim of the appellants-applicants, the wife of the deceased herself deposed as A.W.1 and examined the co- passenger of the deceased as A.W.2 and also got marked Ex.A.1-F.I.R., Ex.A.2-Inquest Report, Ex.A.3-Post-mortem examination report, Ex.A.4-Death Certificate and Ex.A.5-Family Member Certificate. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, the Guard of the subject train was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1- Guard's rough journal, but no documents were marked.
7. In Ex.A.2-inquest report, there are no details of the deceased and the accidental fall. The inquest was conducted over the unknown dead body on 03.03.2003. There are no details with regard to the family members of the deceased in the inquest panchanama. Learned counsel for the applicants would contend that in the inquest, there is mention that the death was due to accidental fall. There are no direct witnesses to the accidental fall. Such recital in the inquest is of no use to the applicants. There is also no journey ticket found. The dead body was not identified immediately. Ex.A.4 is the death certificate, wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 59 years. As per the information given to the police, the age of the death person was of 35 years. So, it is difficult to connect Ex.A.4-death certificate with the subject death. Even there is no copy of final report to substantiate the identity of the dead body. Had A.W.2 said to have seen the deceased purchasing the ticket, boarding the subject train and travelling with the deceased and -4- he is said to be the friend of the deceased, if it is true that the dead body would have been identified. The son of the deceased said to have identified the death person on seeing the photograph. No photographs or no final report are filed to hold that the dead body belong to Samba Murthy Raju. Further, as seen from the entire evidence on record, there is no evidence to substantiate that the deceased-Samba Murthy Raju was a bona fide passenger of the subject train and died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the subject train. The findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence and record. There is nothing to take a different view. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these points are answered.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 29.03.2012, passed in O.A.A. No.303 of 2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 26th December, 2018 siva