Dated: 24.6.2010 Between:
P. Marthamma ..APPELLANT And
1. Union of India rep., by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad .. RESPONDENT.
This Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
Heard the learned Counsel on record.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order, dated 18.12.2003 made in O.A.A.No.153 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short referred as ‘Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience).
The learned Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there is sufficient material to say that the deceased was travelling in the Train No.7057 Bilaspur express on the fateful day. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased along with AW2 and another jointly purchased a ticket marked as Ex.A3, at Chennai Central to Ongole. The learned Counsel would maintain that the Tribunal should have considered that while going to toilet, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to speed and jerks of the train and thereafter, one K. Shadrak informed to Assistant Station Master, Ongole Railway Station along with A.W.2. The learned Counsel also pointed out Ex.A2 and would maintain that the same had not been appreciated in a proper perspective.
On the contrary, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded on appreciation of the evidence available on record, A.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A1 to A4, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with.
In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, the following points arise for consideration in this CMA:
1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal are to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case?
2) If so, to what compensation, the applicant should be entitled?
POINT No.1: The appellant herein as applicant stated that on 3.6.2000 the deceased along with his cousin K. Shadrak and his relative R. Pratap came to Chennai Central and purchased computer journey ticket for three of them to go to Ongole and boarded Train No.7057 Bilaspur express and while travelling in general compartment, the deceased got up to go to toilet and while he was going to toilet he accidentally fell down from the train due to speed and jerks of the train and that K. Shadrak on seeing the incident pulled the alarm chain but the train stopped only at Ongole railway station and that he informed the Assistant Station Master on duty about the incident, who advised him to locate the deceased and that they found him lying on the track. Thereafter, the police came and conducted inquest over the dead body.
The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations.
On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
(i) Whether the applicant is dependant of the deceased Kola Prabhakar?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7057 Bilaspur express travelling from Chennai to Ongole on 3.6.2000?
(iii) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Singarayakonda and Tangatur as alleged?
(iv) To what relief?
The applicant and A.W.2 filed affidavits as A.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 is the copy of the Inquest report, Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of ticket, Ex.A4 is the copy of postmortem examination report.
This Court had given anxious consideration to the evidence recorded by the Tribunal especially, the evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 and also R.W.1. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the applicant to let in evidence in the light of the stand taken by her in particular.
In the light of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if they choose.
POINT No.2: In view of the findings recorded above, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence. Inasmuch as this is an old matter, let the Tribunal give top priority for disposal of the matter at the earliest point of time.
The CMA is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 24th June, 2010 Nn.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CMA No:920 OF 2004 24th June, 2010