APHC010290472020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 191/2020 Between:

1. B .SREERAMULU, S/O LATE B.R.RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. B .LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O B.SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O D,NO. 6-29-A, POTHUKUNTA VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. U NION OF INDIA, through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersMemorandum of civil Misc.

Appeal,having been aggrieved by the order dt 4-5-2020 passed in O.A.II(U) No.364 of 2013on the file of the Railway ClaimsTribunal,Amaravati Bench,Guntur for the following among other, Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent:

1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the appellants/claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi in OA/II(u) 364 of 2013 vide judgment dated 04.05.2020, the appellants/claimants filed this appeal.

2. The appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. The respondent is the South Central Railway, Secunderabad represented by its General Manager. It is the case of the appellants that on 20.03.2013, at about 02.00 p.m., after completing his work at Government Polytechnic and darshan at Kadiri temple, the deceased along with his friend by name Gavvala Mahesh went to Kadiri railway station to go to Dharmavaram and purchased a combined train journey ticket and boarded a train bearing No.57475. At KM No.66/8-9, near name board of Kadiri railway station, the deceased slipped accidentally due to heavy crowd and also due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks of the train, as a result of which, he sustained several injuries and died on the spot at about 04.00 p.m. Thus, the claimants filed an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental death of the deceased in the aforementioned untoward incident.

3. The respondent contested the claim application by contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that no journey ticket was recovered from his dead body. Hence requested to dismiss the claim application.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the Tribunal examined A.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the appellants and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. The respondent relied on the statutory investigation report which is marked as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, came to a conclusion that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger of the train in question as no ticket was recovered from his body. Further, the Tribunal observed that the friend of the deceased, who was examined as A.W.2 was not present at the time of the accident as his presence was not mentioned in the investigation report. Hence, as no reliable evidence was put forth by the claimants, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application vide the impugned judgment. 7. Heard Sri. P.L. Rao,learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.

M. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Railway Claims Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the Tribunal should receive a liberal and wider interpretation in such cases and not a narrow and technical one. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants have discharged their initial burden by adducing oral and filing a sworn a