AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Narayana Reddy, J.—This Judgment, according to law, based on the legal material, placed on Record, by both the parties, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against the sole respondent, u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth, in para-2, infra.
Order, dated 28-6-1996, of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, of its file, made in OAA No. 12 of 1995.
Perused the material papers of the Record.
Heard learned Counsel for the sole appellant and, the learned Counsel for the sole respondent.
The sole appellant, herein corresponds, to sole applicant in the said OAA No. 12 of 1995, of the said Tribunal. The sole respondent, herein, respectively, corresponds to the sole respondent in the said OAA.
The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that OAA No. 12 of 1995, unless, otherwise, specified so.
The sole applicant filed the said OAA No. 12 of 1995, against the sole respondent, for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in respect of the death of the deceased in the train accident, that occurred on 25-9-1994 at 7.00 a.m. when the train reached outer signal of Bolaram Railway Station, while she was travelling in Ajantha Express from Kamareddy to Hyderabad, and, the said Tribunal finally adjudicated upon the said OAA No. 12 of 1995 by the now impugned Orders as under:--
"Dismissing the application, in toto without costs"
Questioning the, validity and legality, of the now impugned orders, the respondent did not file any independent CMA. Nor did file any cross-objections in the present CMA. It is, only, the sole applicant filed this present CMA, questioning the legality and validity of the adjudications set forth in para 2, supra, and urged, that the same are unsustainable at fact and law, and hence is liable to be. dismissed, in toto, as such, etc.
On issue No. 2 framed by the Tribunal the Tribunal found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and was holding a valid ticket. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, this finding on issue No. 2, became final and binding on all the concerned.
On issue No. 1 framed by it, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the death of the deceased is not an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
After considering the evidence on this issue No. l, dealt with by the Tribunal in paras 5 to 14 of its impugned orders in detail I am of the opinion that the finding on issue No. l as recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable and erroneous at fact and law.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the opinion, that a conclusion has to be arrived at and finding has to be recorded to the effect that the death of the deceased is an untoward incident within the meaning of the said provision of Law.
Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. l has to be modified and it is hereby modified accordingly to the effect the death of the deceased was an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
In view of finding on issue No. 1, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 that the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the applicant as claimed in the OAA, has to be modified as is being ordered hereunder.
Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the CMA as under:--
(i) Setting aside the impugned orders set forth in para 2 supra in toto; and
(ii) Consequently, adjudicating upon the said OAA No. 12 of 1995, directing the sole respondent to pay to the sole applicant the total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs).