SIVAKALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are applicants 2 to 4 in O.A. No. 123/97 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. They claimed compensation. It is their case that their predecessor in interest, Kunjukrishna Panicker, was involved in an untoward incident on 04.8.1996 near the southern end of the Kadakkavur Railway Station. It was their case that the deceased came to the Kadakkavur Railway Station and purchased a ticket to go to Trivandrum and that he was waiting for the Trivandrum bound Bangalore Express and while the deceased was standing on the west side edge of south end of the platform, train No. 6320 Madras Mail passed through at a high speed from the southern direction without blowing whistle and unexpectedly the deceased Kunjukrishna Panicker fell down to the track on account of the heavy blow of wind and he was run over and killed on the spot. The respondent contested the matter. It was contended that the deceased did not fall from any train. It is alleged that he was not a bona fide passenger and that he was run over by the train while crossing the railway track at KM 188/10-11, near Kadakkavur railway station.

(2.) The tribunal raised seven Issues. As far as Issue No. 1 is concerned, which was whether the applicants 1 to 5 were dependants, it was found that applicants 1 to 5 were the dependants. In regard to issue No. 2, it is not relevant for our purpose as it related to whether the applicant No. 6 was the only dependant. The Issue was answered against by holding that the 6th applicant was not a dependant. The 6th applicant had not filed any appeal. No doubt, she is the second respondent in this Appeal. The tribunal further found that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. More importantly, answering Issues 4 and 5 which were as to whether the applicants had proved that Kunjukrishna Panicker died in an untoward incident and whether the respondent had proved that the deceased was run over by the train as alleged by them, the tribunal found in favour of the respondent. It is found that it is a clear case where the deceased was run over by the train for which the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the appellants are before us.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.