THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants- applicants under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the judgment in O.A.II (U) No.105 of 2014 dated 17.12.2018. 2.1. Appellant No.1 (died) is the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased-Venkat Reddy.

2.2. Appellants are the applicants and respondent is the respondent in O.A.II (U) No.105 of 2014.

3. It is stated in the O.A. that D.Venkat Reddy, aged about 78 years, retired employee, resident of Lalithanagar, went to Shamshabad in the early morning hours of 30.12.2013 to the house of his relatives and from there he went to Dharmagiri Dharmasai Temple for morning Darshan. In return journey, D.Venkat Reddy was accompanied by his relative by name S.Padmanabha Reddy went to Umdanagar railway station and purchased a passenger ticket from Umdanagar to Vidyanagar. D.Venkat Reddy boarded train No.57306, Guntur-Medchal Passenger and left in the presence of his relative. After departure of the train from the station, his relative returned. There was heavy rush in the train and D.Venkat Reddy slipped and fell down accidentally at KM No.5/11 in between platform and railway track of Vidyanagar railway station, having sustained severe multiple injuries died on the spot on the afternoon of 30.12.2013. Journey ticket was lost and the body of D.Venkat Reddy was dragged, his clothes were badly torn and prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest from the date of accident and costs.

4. Respondent filed written statement and contended that there is no cause of action for the appellants-applicants and the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. Guard of train No.57306 stated that ACP occurred to coach No.GS98525, he immediately reached the spot and rectified the ACP and noticed one male dead body is lying between the track and platform, on enquiry passengers informed that the deceased tried to board the moving train, slipped and fell down from the train. There are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. The incident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness of the deceased-D.Venkat Reddy. As per Inquest, no journey ticket is recovered from the deceased and he is not a bonafide passenger. It is not a case of accidental fall from train, it is a case of suspicious death. Hence, the application is not maintainable. Even according to the Inquest report, deceased- D.Venkat Reddy was not possessing journey ticket and prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide 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?

6. Appellant No.2 is examined as AW.1, also examined AW.2- S.Padmanabha Reddy and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Respondent did not led any evidence, but got marked Ex.R1.

7. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence and the documents marked thereon arrived at a conclusion that the deceased D.Venkat Reddy is neither a bonafide passenger nor he suffered untoward incident and the applicants are not real dependents and dismissed the O.A. which is impugned in the present Appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow-minded approach while adjudicating the case and erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of Railways Act and grossly erred in holding that deceased-D.Venkat Reddy was not a bonafide passenger and also erred that the death of the deceased D.Venkat Reddy was not due to an untoward incident. The act is beneficial piece of legislation and the Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach. Counsel has restricted her claim for Rs.8 Lakhs and relied