APHC010184932019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 212/2019 Between: 1. KONETI RAMBABU, S/O PARADESI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O BHEEMAVARPUKOTA VILLAGE KOTANANDURU MANDALAM, E.G.DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to i)allow the C.M.A., by setting aside the Judgment dt. 7-2-2019 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 30 of 2011 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur ii)and to grant IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to condone the delay of 29 days in filing the the above appeal against the Judgment passed in O.A. II (U) No. 30 of 2011 dt. 7-2-2019 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bemnch at Guntur, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P L RAO 2 VS,J CMA No.212 of 2019 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA No.212 of 2019 J U D G M E N T: Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in OA II (U) No.30 of 2011, dated 07.02.2019, the applicants have preferred the present 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 case are as follows: a) On 05.01.2009, the deceased allegedly went to Visakhapatnam in the early hours at about 3:00 a.m. He returned home by 10:00 a.m. on the same day and informed that he could not attend labour work due to ill health and abdominal pain. Subsequently, on 08.01.2009, he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Tuni by his younger brother. b) It is the case of the applicants that, on the same day, the deceased informed his father and younger brother, in the presence of a Medical Officer, that he had purchased a journey ticket from Tuni to Visakhapatnam on 05.01.2009 at about 5:00 a.m., and while travelling in Visakha Express Train No.7016, after crossing Tuni Railway Station and Tandava Bridge, he accidentally slipped due to a jerk and fell from the train, sustaining internal injuries. While undergoing treatment, he died on 09.01.2009. 4. The respondent–Railways filed a counter denying the averments of the application, stating that the authenticity and veracity of the FIR are denied; the 4 VS,J CMA No.212 of 2019 FIR was registered in collusion with the deceased’s relatives, as it did not disclose any eyewitness to the fall from the train and there is no documentary evidence; neither any co-passenger nor the guard informed about such an incident. Furthermore, the applicant developed a false story to gain undue advantage from the Railways, as the place of incident is near the deceased’s residence. It is not a case of accidental fall. The journey ticket is planted. By filing the Divisional Railway Manager’s report along with enclosures, though the recovery of the said ticket of earlier date issued on 05.01.2009 at 05:07 hours was not denied, it was highlighted that the deceased’s brother admitted him in Government Hospital, Tuni, where he died, and as such, according to the inquest, no visible injuries were found, and therefore the deceased was not at all a bona fide passenger and the Railway is not responsible for the incident, if any. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) 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) are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief? 6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, AW1 to AW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of respondent-railways, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1/D.R.M. Report was marked. 5 VS,J CMA No.212 of 2019 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellants/applicants have filed the present appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that though the journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased, alleging that it was planted, dismissed the claim petition. It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of A.W.2, the doctor who treated the deceased, who categorically deposed during his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have occurred due to a fall from the train. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence i.e., A.W.1 to A.W.3 and Exs.A1 to A7. In spite of there being no rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent except D.R.M. report, and in the absence of such rebuttal evidence, there is no justification for dismissing the claim of the appellants. Therefore, it was prayed to allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation to the applicants. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 11. On perusal of the impugned award and the material available on record, it is evident that the alleged accident took place on 05.01.2009, whereas the deceased was admitted to the hospital only on 08.01.2009, i.e., after a delay 6 VS,J CMA No.212 of 2019 of three days, with complaints of abdominal pain. The applicants examined A.W.2, Dr.Ch. Mrutyunjeya Prasad, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tuni, who deposed that on 08.01.2009, while he was on night duty, the deceased was admitted at about 12:25 hours by Dr. A.V. Ramana, without being brought through the Casualty, and was complaining only of abdominal pain. He further stated that, while undergoing treatment, the deceased fell from the hospital bed at about 3:45 a.m. on 09.01.2009 and died at about 5:25 a.m. on the same day. He also deposed that, at the time of admission, neither the deceased nor his attendants informed that it was a case of fall from a train, and such information was given only after the death of the deceased. The postmortem was conducted on 09.01.2009 and marked as Ex.A3. 12. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was shock due to hematoma. However, the postmortem certificate does not disclose any injury to the abdomen. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, though the deceased returned home on 05.01.2009, no complaint regarding any train accident was made at that time, and the complaint of abdominal pain arose only on 08.01.2009. The evidence of A.W.2 also shows that the deceased fell from the hospital bed during treatment. 13. In these circumstances, the claim of the applicants that the deceased sustained injuries due to a fall from the train is not supported by the medical evidence or facts of the case. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no ground for interference. Consequently, this 7 VS,J CMA No.212 of 2019 Court finds no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 11.03.2026 KGR