GYNI SRINIVAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment dtd. 5/3/2019 in OA II (U) No.171 of 2015 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, the appellants who are applicants in the above referred application filed the present appeal.

(2.) As could be seen from the record, the appellants herein are parents of one Vamshikrishna, who herein after will be referred as deceased was a student and a bachelor. On 28/4/2015, the deceased with a view to attend a function of his friend at Bellampally, he left his house at Peddapally at 11.a.m., and reached railway station. He has purchased journey ticket from Peddapally to Bellampally and boarded a train but accidentally fell down from the running train and died on the spot. In the evening hours, when the appellant No.2 made an attempt to contact the deceased, she could not reach him. Thereafter, she was informed about the incident met by her son and died due to injuries. Thereby, the parents rushed to Mancherial where they found the dead body of their son. Therefore, they filed the above referred application before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation. The application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the post-mortem report revealed the presence of alcohol in the abdomen of the deceased. There was no eye-witness to the alleged incident. Even as per the General Diary entry and sketch prepared at the scene of accident it would suggest that the dead body was found in between the track. Therefore, they claimed that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) The Tribunal framed four (4) issues. During the enquiry, the appellant No.2, who is mother of the deceased filed her evidence affidavit. She was examined as AW.1. They have marked Exs.A1 to A9. No body was examined by the respondent but Divisional Railway Manager's report was marked as Ex.R1. The Railway Claims Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellants herein and placing reliance on the PME report, came to a conclusion that the deceased did not suffer any untoward incident within definition under Sec. 123(c)(2) of Railways act, 1989, thereby, dismissed the application.