L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe Appellants filed O.A.A. No. 17 of 1999 before Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Sri P. Venkata Narasimha Murthy, husband of Appellant No. 1, father of Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and son of Appellant No. 4. It was pleaded that Narasimha Murthy owned two auto rickshaws and in addition to that, he wanted to purchase another second hand auto rickshaw at Rajahmundry and negotiated with a person. They stated that when the owner of the auto did not agree for instalments, Narasimha Murthy contacted his brother at Visakhapatnam to lend a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and when the latter expressed his willingness, Narasimha Murthy and a friend of him, by name Nageswara Rao, boarded Konark Express at Rajahmundry for travelling to Visakhapatnam after purchasing tickets. According to the Appellants, after Nageswara Rao reached Visakhapatnam, he did not find Narasimha Murthy and by handing over both the tickets at the gate, he proceeded to the house of the brother of Narasimha Murthy. It was pleaded that since Narasimha Murthy was not there, he contacted the Appellants at Dimili Village on phone.
2. On coming to know that the dead body of Narasimha Murthy was found near the level crossing at Yelamanchili Railway Station, the Appellants are said to have proceeded to that place and thereafter, to the Government Railway Police, Tuni, where the inquest on the dead body was conducted. With these facts, they claimed that the death of Narasimha Murthy occurred in an untoward incident, involving a passenger train.
3. The Respondent opposed the claim by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that there was nothing on record to disclose that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, much less that he died in an untoward incident.
4. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A.A. through its order, dated 20.08.2003. The same is challenged in this appeal.
5. Heard Smt. Manikya Valli, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
6. The Tribunal framed as many as four issues and on recording oral and documentary evidence found that the Appellants failed to prove their case.
7. The first question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Konark Express. The only person, who spoke about the factum of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, is Nageswara Rao, an alleged co-passenger. Except stating that he did not find Narasimha Murthy at Visakhapatnam Station, he did not indicate as to how the incident occurred. Even the tickets were not available with him. There is any amount of uncertainty, if not doubt as to how the Appellants came to know about the death of the deceased. They are the natives of Dimili Village of East Godavari District, whereas the dead body was found near the level crossing at Yelamanchili Station of Visakhapatnam District. The evidence on record is totally silent about it. Be that as it may, there must be a strong circumstance to prove that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident. There was no eye witness to the occurrence and there was not even a proximate fact, which would enable the Court to infer that the deceased may have fallen from the train. The self-serving and equivocal version of Nageswara Rao cannot be treated as a basis to treat the deceased as a bona fide passenger.
8. Coming to the other question, namely whether the death occurred in an untoward incident, the law on this aspect is very clear. It is only when it is proved that the death or injuries to a passenger is caused on account of an untoward incident that the occasion to award compensation would arise. Except stating that the deceased was travelling in Konark Express, the Appellants have not established the manner in which he is said to have fallen. It is important to note that there is no stop for Konark Express at Yelamanchili Station. When just a dead body is found and no other factors are explained strong evidence is needed to enable a Court to infer the occurrence of an untoward incident. Law contemplates an untoward incident to be the one that would result in the injuries to or death of passengers, who were travelling in train. If that is proved, it is not necessary to establish negligence on the part of the Railways. The Tribunal discussed the evidence dispassionately and arrived at correct conclusions. This Court is not inclined to take a different view.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
