APHC010187632019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2019 Between:

1. K.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE MADDULETI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345

2. VIJAYANIRMALA, W/O K.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345 ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. BY ITS THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.)

2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A II (U) No.71 of 2010, dated 07.02.2019 the Applicants has preferred the present Appeal.

2. The Appellants herein are the parents of Mr. K Venkata Mahesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased’), has made a claim before the learned Tribunal for Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest from the Respondent/ Railways on account of death of the deceased due to untoward incident. On 01.01.2010 in the morning the deceased went to Vijayawada from Guntur to his friend’s house by name K. Nagashankara Reddy and both of them visited Kanaka Durga Temple. In return journey, the deceased along with his friend arrived at Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased a ticket from Vijayawada to Guntur and boarded a train called Vijayawada – Yeshwantpur passenger. Due to heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from running train at KM No. 21/15-17 in between Krishna Canal and Mangalagiri Railway Stations. Having been dragged by train, he sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition.

3. The Respondent filed Written Statement by denying the claim of the Appellants herein and inter alia contended that the deceased was not possessing journey ticket and it is not a case of accidental fall, according to Divisional Railway Manager Report and therefore, the case falls within expectations (b)and (c) of Provision to Section 124-A. Therefore, the Railways is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellants herein and requested to dismiss the claim.

4. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be:

1) Whether the application is maintainable?

2) Whether the Applicant(s) is / are dependant(s) of the deceased? 3) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question?

4) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident?

5) Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?

6) To what relief?

5. During enquiry, the Appellant No.1 is examined as AW-1 and friend of deceased was examined as AW-2; on behalf of Appellants, the documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A9. On behalf of the Respondent, none was examined and marked the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R1.

6. The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger has dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

7. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also the deceased has not sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicabili