S.N. Satyanarayana JUDGMENT
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.
1. The respondent, Union of India represented by General Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli, in OA. No. 105/2007 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 29.6.2009 passed therein. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
Respondents 1 to 5 herein are legal heirs of deceased R. Selvaraj, who is said to have died in an untoward incident on the platform of Oorgaum Railway Station while he was in the process of getting in to Marikuppam-Bangalore Passenger bearing train No. 513. The facts which are not in dispute are that on 01.08.2006 R. Selvaraj while in the process of getting in to train bearing No. 513 which was proceeding from Marikuppam to Bangalore at Oorgaum Station fell down from the moving train, injured himself and succumbed to the same on the next day i.e., on 2.8.2006. Subsequently, claim petition was filed by his legal heirs contending that his death is due to untoward incident, which has taken place in the process of his journey from Oorgaum Station to Bangalore in the aforesaid train. It was also contended by them that he was passenger in the said train with valid ticket bearing No. 71789. In the said proceedings, respondent, Railways took a specific plea that deceased R. Selvaraj was not traveling in the said train with valid ticket issued for journey in the said train for that day and there was also a mistake on his part in trying to board the moving train, in the process he fell down and succumbed to injuries suffered therein.
2. In the proceedings before Railway Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings three issues were framed therein, which are as under:
1. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased R. Selvaraj?
2. Whether the deceased R. Selvaraj was a bonafide passenger by train No. 513 from Oorgaum to Krishnarajapuram?
3. Whether the applicants prove that deceased R. Selvaraj died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident as stated in Section 123(c)(2) of Railway Act, 1989 or as stated in para 8 of reply statement by the respondent?
And answered all the three issues in the affirmative and held that applicants are entitled to receive compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- payable with interest at 9% pa., from the date of order till actual payment.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent, Railways have come up in this appeal impugning said judgment on the ground that finding of Tribunal particularly on issue Nos. 2 and 3 is contrary to the material evidence available on record. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned it is contended that ticket which was found on the person of deceased R. Selvaraj bearing No. 71789 was issued for journey dated 28.7.2006 in respect of very same train and it is not for journey on 1.8.2006. Therefore, at the relevant time of accident deceased was not having valid ticket and he was not a bonafide passenger is one of the grounds. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, it is contended that as per the DRMs report the accident took place when deceased R. Selvaraj attempted to board the moving train, which has resulted in his falling down and succumbing to injuries suffered therein. Therefore, these two aspects are not properly looked in to and appreciated by Tribunal, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
4. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and as well as contesting respondents, who are applicants before Tribunal. Perused the judgment impugned with reference to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On going through the same it is seen that reasoning given by Tribunal so far as issue No. 2 appears to be ridiculous. Wherein, it is held that since deceased was not accompanied by any of his family members whatever that is stated by applicants is a guess work on the basis of information given to them by police or other persons, which should be accepted. The finding that even in DRM's report filed by respondent Railways, nowhere it is stated that in........