JUDGMENT :

G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants against the orders in O.A. II (U) No. 343 of 2010, dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench.

2. The claimants are the parents of Mr. A. Sarat Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). They made a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the alleged untoward incident occurred on 18.08.2010.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell, are that two days prior to the incident, the deceased Sarat Babu went to his native place Karampudi, spent time with his parents and while returning to Hyderabad on 18.08.2010, he was accompanied by his uncle upto the Piduguralla Railway Station, where he purchased II Class journey ticket and boarded Train No. 352/Repalle-Secunderabad Delta Passenger to go to Hyderabad. While traveling in the train, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train at K.M. No. 76/5-6 posts between Piduguralla and Tummalacheruvu Railway Stations and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Guard reported the incident to the Station Superintendent and GRP, Guntur, who in turn, registered a case, conducted inquest and opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to accidental fall from the train.

4. The General Manager of Railways, filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that as the claim does not fall within the ambit of either Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, they are not liable to pay any compensation. It is the contention of the respondents that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged untoward incident. As per the FIR, the age of the deceased was shown as 45 years which is contrary to the claim petition, wherein, the age of the deceased was shown as 24 years. It is also contended in the written statement that the Medical Officer did not opine that the death of the deceased was due to train accident, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The last contention raised in the written statement is that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger as he was not holding any journey ticket and therefore, there is no need to grant compensation.

5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an unto-wad incident?

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. On behalf of applicants, AWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but the report of the Divisional Railway Manager was marked as Ex.R-1.

7. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by coming to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. In view of the finding on Issue No. 2, the Tribunal has concluded that there is no need to deal with Issue Nos. 1 and 3.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. It is urged by the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the death of the deceased was reported to the railway officials 12 hours after the accident on 18.08.2010. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the deceased committed suicide based on the statements made by the Guard and the Driver of the train, which are annexed along with the report of the Divisional Railway Manager. It is also urged by the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the deceased committed suicide on the ground that the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces. It is also urged by the learned counsel for appellants that as per the testimony of AW-2, the deceased had purchased II Class journey ticket a