ORDER
B. Prakash Rao, J.
1. The appellant/Railways challenge the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad in O.A.A.No. 92 of 1997 dated 16-4-1998 allowing the claim for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- i.e., Rs. 20,000/- each to the respondents 1 and 2 for the death of the deceased.
2. According to claim, on 4-5-1997 the deceased and her son, both passengers, with tickets in Train No. 339 Dornakal-Manuguru went to Bhadrachalam Railway Station. While the deceased was standing at the door of the coach, the train moved suddenly and she slipped and after fallingdown on the platform died. The claim was for rupees two lakhs.
3. The appellant contested the claim, denying the allegations and further stating that deceased was trespassing the track, when the train was being backed from the loopline.
4. During the enquiry, claiman.ts examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the respondents examined R.Ws. 1 and 2. On consideration of the evidence and the material, the Court below finding that the deceased and her son were passengers and the railways are liable for compensation.
5. Sri T. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on various provisions of the Railways Act and the Rules made thereunder, sought to show that the deceased and her son, not being passengers, no liability can be fastened.
6. Sri N. Parthasaradhy, the learned Counsel for the claimants resisted these arguments, mainly contending that there is ample unrebutted evidence which has been accepted by the Tribunal and thus the findings are unassailable.
7. These rival submissions leads to the point, as to whether the deceased (with her son) was passenger and whether the railways are responsible.
8. Admittedly, the deceased died on 4-5-1997. According to the claimants, as spoken to by P.W. 2, her son, both after purchasing tickets for Manuguru, deceased entered the train. After attending to calls of nature, she was standing at the door. As the train moved suddenly, she fell on the platform and died. P.W. 1 spoke about his knowledge of incident and attending to inquest etc. According to the Railways, she was run over by the train, when she was trespassing the track. In their support,R.W. 1, the guard of the train and R.W. 2, Assistant Station Master were examined. In fact, R.W. 1 states that he heard somebody crying that somebody has fallen down. He reported to the Deputy Station Superintendent, who is not examined. He does not know the details of the fall. R.W. 2 speaks about the deceased coming across on loopline. However, on being confronted with Ex. A-1, the FIR, he stated that R.W. 1 informed him about a woman falling down, while vehicle was backed from loop line. Thus, neither there is any consistency in their versions, nor they supported the specific plea, as raised in the counter that the deceased was trespassing and coming across a reversing train. It is also evident from the inquest enquiry that the deceased fell from the coach. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the railways, the officials of whom being the best witnesses to speak about the true details of incident, and on the face of unsupporting evidence of R.W. 1, the direct witness, a guard of the train, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W. 2, the son, who accompanied the deceased. Even as regards non-production of tickets, which according to the respondents were lost the Court below has accepted the versions. There is no other material or evidence worth considering to call for an interference with the findings of the Court below.
9. There is always heavy burden resting on the appellants, even at first stage, to make out strong and compelling grounds to interdict the findings. Especially when to acceptable official version forthcoming, supported by evidence, it is not open for the appellants to enlarge the scope of the appeal, to go into any other questions.
10. There was an attempt, by placing reliance on the authorities viz., Thoznilalar Transport Company v. Valliammal, 1990 ACJ 201 Purushothama Devadiga v. Thangamma, Prakash Anand Pednekar v. Sitabai R. Gawas, : AIR1995Bom118 Uvaraja v. Parvathi Ammal, 1986 ACJ 506 Union of India v. Sunil Kumar, : [1985]1SCR555 Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 1848 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, : [1987]1SCR819 to seek exoneration of railways for any fault on the part of the passenger. However, after going through the entire pleadings and evidence on record and keeping those from the appellant, this is not a case to embark into lapses or duties and obligations on the part of passenger, for which no foundation is laid. Therefore, it has to be held that the deceased was a passenger, along with her son and the railways are rightly held to be liable. However, as no arguments are advanced on the quantum of compensation, it remains.
11. Accordingly, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.