APHC010297752021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 207/2021 Between:

1. K ILLO JAMUNA, W/O LATE K.THRINADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE

2. K ILLO SUHASINI, D/O LATE K.THRINADHA RAO, AGED 20 YEARS, 3. K ILLO SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE K.THRINADHA RAO AGED 17 YEARS, MINOR

4. K ILLO MAHA DEVI, D/O LATE K.THRINADHA RAO, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR

5. K ILLO GULABI, W/O LATE MONNU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE NOS. 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN KILLO JAMUNA ALL ARE R/O 7-269, PEDALABUDU, BISHNUGUDA VILLAGE, ARAKU VALLEY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. T HE UNION OF INDIA, rep. by the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar.

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

Appeal, having been aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 23-4-2021 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 180 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench at Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to declare the petitioner No. 2 herein as major by discharging the 1st petitioner as guardian, in the interest of justice 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 order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short „the learned Tribunal‟) in O.AII/(U)/180/2013, dated 23.04.2021 the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:

a) The deceased was working as a daily wage labourer. On 07.09.2012, in the morning, he left his residence to go to Srungavarapukota for masonry work. He went to Araku Railway Station and purchased a journey ticket bearing No.08354 from Araku to Srungavarapukota. While travelling in Train No.58502 Passenger, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at KM No.101/13-101/12 between Araku and Similiguda Railway Stations, sustained injuries and died on the spot.

b) As per Column No.7 of the claim application, the journey ticket was kept with the GRP, Vizianagaram. The 1^st applicant examined herself as A.W.1 reiterating the above facts. She also marked Exs.A1 to A9, namely, attested copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Postmortem Report, Aadhaar Cards and Ration Card. One N. Annapurneswara Rao, ASI, GRP, Vizianagaram, was examined as A.W.2 and the original CD file brought by him was marked as Ex.A10.

4. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It was contended that there was no cause of action for the applicants as the claim did not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and the applicants were put to strict proof of all the averments made in the claim application. It was further stated that, as per the FIR, the on-duty Guard of Train No.58502 issued a memo stating that one male person had fallen down between Araku and Similiguda Railway Stations and that no journey ticket was found with him. Therefore, the respondent denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and also put the applicants to strict proof regarding their dependency on the deceased. The respondent marked Ex.B1-Divisional Railway Manager‟s Report, wherein it was stated that the Guard thoroughly checked the body of the deceased and found no journey ticket and that the ticket subsequently filed was a planted one. On that basis, it was contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

5. Based on the pleadings, the T