LAWS(APH)-2006-8-4

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHANOTU RAJI

Decided On August 31, 2006
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
BHANOTU RAJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent is the wife of late Bhanotu Lakpati and respondents 2 to 5 are said to be their children. They filed OAA No.279 of 2001, before the Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, alleging that Lakpati, along with another person, by name G. Ramulu and others, was working as labourer at Vijayawada, and that on 21-7-2001, he travelled by a train to his native place, Mahaboobabad. It was stated that he has fallen from the train at the A-cabin of Mahaboobabad Railway Station, sustained injuries and died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. The ticket was said to have been lost in the untoward incident. They claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant opposed the application, disputing the contents of the claim petition. It was alleged that Train No. 170, in which the deceased was said to have travelled was not in operation or existence on 21-7-2001. It was also pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal framed three issues, viz;

(2.) Issues 2 and 3 were answered in favour of the respondents, and on Issue No.1, the Tribunal took the view that the 1st respondent did not produce any document to show that respondents 2 to 5 are her children through the deceased, and that she should file separate certificate issued by the Competent Authority for this purpose. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded as compensation. The same is challenged in this CMA.

(3.) Sri B.H.R. Choudary, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that once the Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased, there was no basis for awarding the compensation. He further contends that the other legal representatives, viz., parents of the deceased, were not impleaded. He contends that there was any amount of discrepancy, as to the description of the train, or as to the deceased being bona fide passenger, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the Tribunal, in awarding the compensation.