C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) WHEN the C. M. Ps. came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for both parties addressed arguments in the main appeal itself and accordingly the appeal itself is being finally disposed of.

( 2 ) THIS is an unfortunate case where a lady passenger, aged about 49 years, who was travelling in the second class railway compartment from Madras to Guntakal fell down from the train near Gooty Railway station and she was crushed between the train and the platform resulting in her instantaneous death. The husband and the daughter of the deceased, who were also travelling in the same train, have preferred a claim for compensation before the railway Claims Tribunal. Along with the claim application, they filed the relevant documents like the First Information report, inquest report, the original copy of the ticket coupon, the original copy of the e. F. T. (Excess Fare Ticket) of the deceased and also the salary certificate of the deceased who was employed as a Nursing Tutor.

( 3 ) THE respondent-Railway filed acounter opposing the claim mainly on the ground that the death occurred on account of the negligence and careless act of the deceased who attempted to step down from the moving train before taking a stop on the platform at Gooty station and as such no compensation is payable in view of proviso (b) to Section 124 of the Railways act, 1989. Though the Railway also took a formal objection putting the applicants to strict proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, it was, however, admitted in the counter that II Class Ticket No. 80584033 was issued to the deceased, her husband and daughter at Chennai on 11-9-1997.

( 4 ) THE Railway Claims Tribunal, on a consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that it was a case of accidental fall and the deceased died on account of the accidental fall from the train. On the said finding, the Tribunal allowed the application and awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to Applicant No. 1, i. e. , the husband of the deceased. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in G. M. K. S. R. T, corpn. , Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas, the tribunal directed the Railway to pay rs. 50,000/- to the applicant No. l by cheque and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was directed to be deposited in a nationalised Bank as fixed deposit for a period of five years permitting Applicant no. l to draw the interest accruing thereon. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Railway.

( 5 ) SRI T. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, assailed the order of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal approached the matter casually and allowed the application without conducting any enquiry without recording any evidence and without properly considering the various contentions raised by the appellant.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Claimants, on the other hand, tried to sustain the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there are no valid grounds whatsoever for interference.

( 7 ) A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Tribunal, after referring to the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased. (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. (3) Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident. (4) To what relief. On Issue No. 1 the Tribunal noted that the second applicant i. e. , the daughter stated before the Tribunal that she is married and that she does not claim any compensation. It was, therefore, held that Applicant No. l is the only dependent of the deceased. On issue No. 2 the Tribunal, after examining the ticket and the other documents filed by the applicants, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. On Issue No. 3, the Tribunal, on a perusal of the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document