JUDGMENT
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act by the claimants, aggrieved by the order made in OAA No. 139 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad.
2. The Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad is the respondent.
3. The appellants-claimants filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) on account of the death of the husband of the 1st claimant namely Karri Venkataramana, (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ for the purpose of convenience) in the alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train on 13-12-1999 at Elamanchili Railway Station.
4. The 1st applicant had sworn to an affidavit narrating the facts averred and Ex.A1-copy of FIR, Ex.A2-copy of postmortem report, Ex.A3-copy of inquest report and Ex.A4-legal heir certificate also had been marked. AW.2, one Jagadeeswara Rao, an eye-witness, who is said to have accompanied the deceased had deposed in detail, virtually specifying the stand taken by AW.l. RW.l the Deputy Station Superintendent, Elamanchili and also CW.l, the Investigating Officer, had made their statements.
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for the purpose of convenience) on the respective pleadings of the parties, after settling the issues, recorded findings and made a general observation that it is common knowledge that cases of suicide are being converted into untoward incidents for the purpose of getting compensation, and also pointed out certain discrepancies, and ultimately negatived the relief. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
6. Contentions of Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel far the appellants:
Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel representing the appellants-claimants, had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would maintain that this is a clear case of death by an untoward accident and the Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is a clear case where the burden of proof had been well discharged, and even then, by pointing out certain flimsy discrepancies, the relief had been negatived. The learned Counsel would point out to the statement made by AW.l, well supported by that of AW.2. The learned Counsel would submit that the mere fact that RW.l had stated in a different way would not alter the situation, especially, in the light of the statement made by the Investigating Officer-CW. 1, who had also re-affirmed what had been stated by AW.2. When clear corroborative evidence is available to the statement made by AW.l, negativing the relief, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, cannot be justified. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.
7. Contentions of Sri Venkataramana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent:
Sri Venkataramana, learned Standing Counsel representing the Railways, would maintain that the mere fact that the ticket was available and the mere fact that a co-traveller like AW.2 made a corroborative statement relating to the incident, may not be sufficient to bring the incident within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the discrepancies which had been recorded by the Tribunal and would submit that in the light of these findings, negativing the relief in the facts and circumstances, being just and proper, the said findings to be confirmed by this Court. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions on the aspect of burden of proof in this regard.
8. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the material available on record.
9. Pleadings of the parties:
The appellants as claimants pleaded as hereunder:
The deceased has boarded the Train No. 7480 Tirupathi-Howrah Express on 13-12-1999 at 3.20 a.m., at Elamanchili by duly purchasing ticket from Elamanchili to Visakhapatnam with a view to attend his duty at Visakhapatnam. After boarding the train, he settled in one of the seats along with his colleague employee Maleti Jagadeeswar Rao, and when he stood up to answer his call of nature from his seat and that he was about to move towards toilet, the train moved with full motion at the starting moment due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the train, thereby the deceased lost his balance and fell down from the train through the door which is near the bathroom and came between the track and the platform and that the deceased was run over by the train resulting cut of the body into pieces. The deceased died on the spot. It is further stated that the deceased purchased II Class ticket bearing No. 76793 for the said train and the ticket was available with the GRP/Elamanchili.
Respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the averments and further it was pleaded that contradictory facts had been mentioned at Paragraph 7 of the inquest report that the death of the deceased was on account of fall from Train No. 7480 or any other train. It was also pleaded that it was due to coming under the wheels while the deceased was on the ground itself and it was also further specifically denied that the deceased was travelling along with his colleague Jagadeeswara Rao and also falling of the deceased from the train after settling on the seat and while going for toilet and further contended that the possibility of falling a. person when he was moving towards toilet is ruled out, and the present application is filed to gain compensation with ulterior motive. It is further contended that when the deceased, while going to toilet, has fallen down, there is no possibility of his luggage i.e., plastic wire bag containing Swati Weekly etc. found with the dead body on the track as per the inquest report. It is further contended that if the colleague of the deceased also was travelling, he could have stopped the train by pulling alarm chain and complained to the Railway Officials. It appears that the colleague of the deceased has gone to Visakhapatnam straight away and his presence at the inquest conducted at 12 noon is not possible. It is further contended that the Station Superintendent, Elamanchili has given a report about finding of dead body at Visakhapatnam end of Platform No. 2 at 6.10 hours on 13-12-1999 after the departure of 7616 Visakha Express on receiving information from on duty YPC Mr. Sri Ramana. It is further contended that the enquiries with the Guard revealed that Train No. 7480 arrived at Elamanchili at 03.14 hours and left at 03.16 hours without any untoward incident or alarm chain pulling and the death of the deceased might be on account of coming under the train from off side or due to any criminal act and cutting of the body of the deceased into two pieces at the waist is not possible when the death was on account of fall from the train. It is further contended that the death of the deceased was not on account of an untoward incident as envisaged under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and it would come under the exceptions of Section 124-A and the deceased is not a bona fide passenger.
10. Issues settled by the Tribunal:
The under noted issues had been settled by the Tribunal:
(1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Venkataramanal?
(2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 7480 Tirupati-Howrah Express travelling from Elamanchili to Visakhapatnam on 13-12-1999?
(3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Elamanchili Railway Station?
(4) To what relief?
11. Evidence on record:
The evidence available on record is the affidavit of AW.l, who had been cross-examined, AW.2, RW.l and CW.l and also Exs.Al to A4, copy of FIR., copy of postmortem report, copy of inquest report and legal heir certificate.
12. Findings recorded by the Tribunal:
On issue No. l, the sole affidavit of the 1st applicant had been taken into consideration and also in view of the legal heir certificate-Ex.A4, it was held that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. While answering issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, pointed out certain discrepancies and improbability of the version as averred by the appellants-claimants, and ultimately recorded a finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and, in the circumstances, the ticket was planted to make believe that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling from Elamanchili to Visakhapatnam, with a view to get the compensation, and ultimately dismissed the claim. Hence, the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
13. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the appellants-applicants-claimants are entitled to compensation on the ground that the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Elamanchili Railway Station, in the facts and circumstances of the case?
(2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?
Point No. l
14. The respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled, the evidence placed on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, in brief, already had been discussed supra. The 1st applicant filed her affidavit besides the affidavit of an eye-witness, a co-traveller of the deceased AW2, M. Jagadeeswar Rao. Ex.Al-copy of FIR., Ex.A2-copy of post-mortem report, Ex.A3-copy of inquest report and Ex.A4-legal heir certificate also had been marked. The affidavit of RW.l, the Deputy Station Superintendent was filed and, apart from this evidence, the statement of CW.l, the Investigating Officer also had been recorded.
The 1st applicant-AWl, the wife of the deceased had sworn to the relationship between the deceased and the family members and also stated how the deceased was travelling along with Jagadeeswara Rao-AW.2 and he stood up from his seat and was about to move to the toilet and at that moment the train moved with full motion due to which he lost balance and fell down from the train and the body was cut into pieces.
AW.2 had deposed that both of them had boarded the train at Elamanchili for attending to their duties at Visakhapatnam Naval Dock Yard and he was having season ticket, but the season ticket of the deceased was expired and hence the deceased purchased a ticket, and both of them boarded the train when the train was completely halted at the Station. They both settled in their respective seats and the deceased, to answer the calls of nature, stood up from his seat and was about to move from his seat towards the toilet, but, at that moment, the train moved with full motion and resulted in the falling of the deceased from the train through the door and that the deceased fell down between the track and platform and run over by the train and the body of the deceased was cut into pieces.
RW.l, the Deputy Station Superintendent, had sworn to certain details and also stated that at 06.10 hours, Yard Porter of Elamanchili had informed that one dead body was lying on the down loop line by the side of the track and on that he informed the same to GRP/Tuni by control phone.
The Investigating Officer-CWl, had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the spot in the presence of mediators and family members of the deceased and AW.2.
15. The discrepancy is that CW.l had not mentioned in Column No. 3 of the inquest report that the Yard Porter of Elamanchili, Mr. E. Ramana, who was on duty is the first person to find the dead body. Further discrepancy in the evidence of A.W.2 relating to the sudden movement and the jerks also had been pointed out. The improbability in the version of AW.2 relating to the incident also had been pointed out. These are the aspects, which had been taken note of and the relief had been negatived. It is pertinent to note that not only the evidence of AW.2, apart from the evidence of AW.l, but, the evidence of CW.l also is clear and categorical relating to what had been stated before him, and Ex.Cl was marked, which discloses that the witness had witnessed the incident. But, however, the discrepancy that the witness had not actually witnessed the incident, but on rising cries by some passengers that one passenger had fallen down, he searched for the deceased and found missing, was taken into consideration.
16. Now, on the evidence available on record, it may have to be seen whether these findings recorded by the Tribunal to be confirmed or to be disturbed.
17. The compensation claims, normally, are the reliefs granted by the welfare legislations for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of either the injured or the deceased persons and the dependent family members. While appreciating the overall evidence, the Tribunal is expected to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and such appreciation should be, in many a case, based on more common sense and the realities. On trivial discrepancies, negativing the relief, when substantially the incident as such had been proved by the claimants in accordance with law, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be totally unjustified. Be that as it may, on the aspect of burden of proof and also how to appreciate evidence in such matters, reliance was placed on the following decisions:
(2) General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. K. Narayana Rao 2004 (4) ALD 351 (DB).
(3) N. Buchilingam and Ors. v. Union of India .
18. The Full Bench of this Court in Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, Dhone, Kurnool District and Ors.’s case (supra), the majority opined thus:
55. In the structure of Sub-clause (1) of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act “the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, does not fit in for an appropriate construction of the clause”. “Accidental falling of a passenger” has been incorporated in a distinct Sub-clause (2) only as a structural arrangement. Both the Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause (c) of Section 123 are designed to express a substantially similar legislative measure i.e., to define an untoward incident as an event or occurrence that is caused by factors external to the passenger or unrelated to his normal prudent conduct. In the light of the circumstances set out in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (c) it would be a strained interpretation to give the expression “accidental falling of any passenger” [in Sub-clause (2)] an expansive import to embrace an accidental fall occurring as a consequence of an imprudent, negligent, foolhardy or careless act of the victim.
56. That an expansive meaning is excluded by the legislation is also inferable from the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act. A true and fair construction of Clause (c) of Section 123 should avoid importing a meaning to the expression “untoward incident” by which the perpetrator or an abettor in the commission of, a terrorist act, a violent attack, robbery, dacoity, rioting, shoot-out, arson or fall of any passenger from a train is able to obtain compensation for himself, if he has been injured or has died as a result of such conduct of his. To ensure the exclusion of a contrary interpretation the Legislature appears to have taken care to enact ex abundenti cautela, a proviso to Section 124-A. By the proviso it is enacted that no compensation shall be payable by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to any of the 5 categories of circumstances enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e). The commission by a person or passenger, of a terrorist act, the making of a violent attack, the commission of robbery, dacoity, the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, would disentitle a person, who has been injured or has died as a consequence of the commission or indulging, of or in, any of the above acts, as his injury or death, as the case may be, would be the result of his own criminal act. That is the purpose of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A.
65. The categories of situations enumerated in the proviso to Section 124-A which exempt the Railway Administration from liability include suicide or attempt to suicide by the passenger concerned; his own criminal act; an act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity and even injury or death on account of a natural cause, disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such medical or surgical treatment is necessitated on account of an injury caused by an untoward incident. Self-inflicted injury is one of the enumerated circumstances that exempt the Railways from paying compensation for death or injury of a passenger.
66. On a true and fair construction of the proviso to Section 124-A including the five enumerated circumstances therein, the conclusion is compelling that death or injury resulting from the volitional and conscious conduct of the passenger reasonably expected to result in an injury or death to himself, injury or death as a result of his criminal act or while in a state of intoxication or while suffering from insanity or on account of a natural cause or an account of a disease or a medical or surgical intervention, where such medical or surgical intervention is unrelated to an injury caused by an untoward incident, exclude the liability of the Railways to pay compensation.
69. What is provided in Section 124-A is compensation to a passenger for having suffered an injury or death in an untoward incident even where the untoward incident is not the consequence of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. There appears nothing in the phraseology of Section 124-A, which implicates the liability of the Railways to compensate a passenger who suffered injury or death, as the case may be, on account of his own imprudent act or a departure from the standard of care required of the passenger while travelling on a train. If the legislation has clearly pronounced qua the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act that the Railway Administration is immunized from the liability to pay compensation for death or injury suffered on account of suicide or attempt to suicide by the passenger, on account of his criminal act or while in a state of intoxication or insanity or self-inflicted injury or on account of natural causes or disease, there is no justification to infer that the Legislature intended to mulct the Railway Administration with a liability to pay compensation to the passenger who had carelessly or negligently invited disaster to himself.
In relation to the concept of burden of proof, the dissenting opinion was expressed as hereunder:
18. Though the general principles relating to the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act cannot be totally ignored, the language employed in Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Act may have to be given the prime importance, and if necessary all the provisions may have to be harmoniously construed. Legislative wisdom and will are to be given prime importance while interpreting the statutory provisions. At the same time, Courts cannot totally ignore the social conditions where a provision may have to be interpreted in relevance to the social conditions of the society. Though ignorance of law is no excuse, in matters like administration of Railways, warning poles, precautionary boards, bars, what to be done and what not to be done should be made more popular by having requisite publicity by practical modes so that ordinary people may know what to be done and what not to be done in relation to Railways, be that in the case of untoward incident, accidental falling or in any other like context too. It is rather difficult to lay down the law on illustrations which may be too numerous and consequently cannot be specified exhaustively. These are all matters to be decided on facts in every given case. Suffice to state that the language of Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Act would not admit of any other interpretation than the one made by the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Baburao Koddekar . No ratio as such had been laid down by another Division Bench in Union of India v. Uggina Srinivasa Rao , which was just decided on facts. When law is crystallized in the form of a statutory provision, general principles relating to negligence cannot be imported so as to interpret the said provision though such principles may be taken into consideration as guiding principles, but ultimately the legislative will or wisdom alone must prevail over the general principles, especially where the language of the statutory provision is clear and unambiguous and admits of only one possible interpretation. In the light of the same, it has to be decided whether the views expressed by the prior Division Benches in Baburao Koddekar’s case and Uggina Srinivasa Rao’s case, can be sustained or to be declared as not good law.
19. As already referred to supra, in Baburao Koddekar’s case, an attempt was made to lay down the ratio relating to “untoward incident” and the “burden of proof, and in Uggina Srinivasa Rao’s case the Division Bench had disposed of the matter depending upon facts. Except clarifying the position further and laying down certain additional propositions, it cannot be held that the ratio as such is bad since when matters are decided on facts, normally it cannot be said that any ratio had been laid down. Though it is very difficult to exhaustively lay down legal propositions, certain principles which emerge may be specified as hereunder:
(1) Where a bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident or sustains injuries, as the case may be, Railways to pay compensation without dispute, unless the death of the deceased, or the injuries sustained by the injured, would fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.
(2) Accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and hence they would be covered by untoward incident as specified in Section 123(c) of the Act.
(3) Railways can always take a specific plea inclusive of exceptions and show how the claimant is not entitled to compensation. Liability in such cases cannot be said to be strict or absolute liability, but liability which may be avoided by Railways by proving that the legal representatives of the deceased victim or the injured claimant, are not entitled to compensation on any one of the defences available to Railways under the Statute so as to disentitle the claimants to claim compensation.
(4) Where a penal provision in a Statute or Rules under Tariff would fall or attract any of the exceptions under Section 124-A proviso, may have to be decided in each and every case and general propositions cannot be laid down in this regard in view of the complexity and diversity of the illustrations and the provisions or the Rules.
(5) The general principles relating to negligence, though may be taken as guiding principles, they cannot be said to be binding in the case of an untoward incident as contemplated by the specific provisions of the Act. Specific provisions of the Act would prevail over such general principles.
(6) Though burden is on Railways, the Railways always has a right to show by specific plea and evidence that claimants are not entitled to compensation in the light of the defences available to the Railways, specified under Section 124-A and Section 123(c) of the Act.
(7) The provisions of the Railways Act and the scheme and the object of the said provisions cannot be said to be exactly the same when compared with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the principle of no fault liability under the Motor Vehicles Act as such in its rigour cannot be extended though these provisions under the Act are akin to the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act in certain respects. However, the underlying principles may be applied in the background of the language of the provisions referred to supra.
(8) Though the expressions “untoward incident” and “accidental falling” may have to be understood and interpreted in their literal sense as specified in the provisions as such, the general principles relating to the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also cannot be totally ignored, and such principles may be harmoniously construed and read along with these provisions, depending upon the facts of a given case.
20. Except clarifying the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in Babaurao Koddekar s case and Uggina Srinivasa Rao’s case (supra), by adding some additional principles, nothing more need be laid down by this Court.
19. In General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. K. Narayana Rao (supra), the Division Bench observed thus:
9. The general principles relating to burden of proof cannot be totally ignored. The act of the woman in this case can never be treated as self-inflicted injury. It is a case where the deceased was travelling with her husband and daughter with Ticket No. 80584033. It is not disputed before this Court. It is a clear case of untoward incident and it cannot be said to be self-inflicted injury since the Railways have failed to place any material before the Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant also admits that no material has been produced to show that it is self-inflicted injury. An attempt is made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to show that the deceased was getting down from the moving train before taking a stop on the platform at Gooty Station and sustained injuries and the Railways would not be liable after getting down the train. Reliance is placed in a decision reported in Southern Motors v. C. Sivajothiammal 1982 ACJ (Supp.) 85. It is a case arising out of motor vehicle accident. The deceased got down from the bus so as to give way to persons getting down from the bus at the bus stop. The bus started to move before the deceased could board the bus. The deceased ran after the bus and attempted to board the moving bus, but fell down and was crushed. But in the present case the deceased was getting down from the train. It cannot lead to the conclusion that the responsibility of the Railways has come to an end. As long as she has not surrendered the ticket before the Ticket Collector, it cannot be stated that she is not a passenger. She continues to be a passenger till she leaves the Railway Station or premises. We respectfully disagree with the said principles laid down in the aforesaid decision as it is a case of getting down from a bus and there is no question of surrendering the ticket. It is observed in Hamzah D.494 v. Wan Hanafi Bin Wan Ali 1976 ACJ 17, by the Federal Court of Malaysia at Para 18 as follows:
It is our considered opinion that the steps taken by the appellants to passengers including the plaintiff from being at or near the steps were reasonably adequate in the circumstances, and that the appellants were therefore not negligent.
In the absence of evidence placed regarding negligence, it has no application to the facts of this case. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contends that there is contributory negligence. He placed reliance on the decision reported in Temulji Jamsetji Joshi v. The Bombay Electric Supply and Tramways Company Limited 1911 ILR (Bom.) 478. It is clear from the principles laid down in this decision that there is lot of difference in between the Tramways Company and Railways Company. In the absence of any evidence of negligence on the part of passenger, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot have much bearing. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as there is no evidence to that effect. The decision rendered in Assam State Transport Corporation v. Mahadevi Nayak (supra), also arises out of motor vehicle, which dashed against the cyclist. It has no application to the facts of this case since the evidence has to be based only upon the FIR and inquest report and the judgment of the Criminal Court as well as the evidence adduced before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal. It has no bearing on the facts of this case. What has to be considered in this case is whether the FIR and inquest report can be found basis for proving the negligence. The Court can look into those documents. There are rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stating that the Tribunal has to base its conclusion on the strength of FIR and inquest report as can be seen from Rule 476(7) of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as under:
Basis to award the claim:-The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of-
(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident;
(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;
(iii) Copy of First Information Report;
(iv) Post-mortem Certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer, and
(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim.
No such rule has been framed under the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. Had such rule been framed; there is no difficulty to look into contents of FIR and inquest report. The FIR can be looked into only for the purpose of death that occurred. The inquest report can be looked into as to the particulars of the person who died and the cause of death being suicidal or accidental. This is not a case of death occurring due to self-inflicted injury as can be seen from FIR and inquest report. We have pointed out that there are lacunae in the Rules. It is a case where death is admitted. It is for the Railways to prove the negligence and carelessness of the deceased. The Tribunal has perused the documents produced and found that she was the passenger travelling along with the claimants. When such is the case, the Railways have to prove that it was self-inflicted injury. There is absolutely no material placed before the Court.
20. The learned Judge of this Court in N. Buchilingam and Ors. v. Union of India (supra), observed at Paragraph 13 thus:
The other issue touches the question is as to whether the death of the deceased occurred on account of accidental fall. The fact that the dead body was noticed and recovered by the Railway Staff near Railway track prima facie discloses that the death of the deceased occurred on account of an accident. The nature of incidents that may result in injuries or death of bona fide passengers, involving a train is elaborately dealt with in Section 123 of the Railways Act The term ‘accidental fall’ referred to in Clause (c) thereof, does not require that the accident shall be of a particular nature. Once an individual receives injuries or succumbs to them, the liability of the Railways arised. It is saved only under certain circumstances referred under Section 124-A of the Act. As long as the circumstances stated therein are not pleaded or proved, the liability against the respondent to pay compensation subsists. Being the provisions intended for the welfare of the victims of accident or their dependants, Sections 123 and 124-A need to be given a liberal construction. There are no factors to indicate that there was any attempt on the part of the appellants to present a fictitious claim. The fact that the dead body was found at a place hundreds of kilometers away from their residence, the deceased was seen of by PW.2 at the Railway Station and that tickets were recovered from his body, clearly disclose that the death occurred only on account of accidental fall from the train. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to be paid the compensation as provided for under the relevant provisions. The compensation provided for such instances under the relevant provisions as they stand now is Rs. 4,00,000/-.
21. Even if the majority opinion expressed by the Full Bench referred supra to be followed, since this Court is bound to follow the binding precedent, this Court is satisfied that in the present case, by virtue of the evidence of AW.l, well supported by the evidence of AW.2, and in a way further corroborated even by the evidence of CW.l, the claim is well proved by the appellants-claimants. The vague evidence of RW.l in this regard would not alter the situation in anyway. The appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal on pointing out trivial discrepancies, ignoring the substance of evidence, and negativing the relief in a claim of this nature, is totally unjustified.
Point No. 2
22. Viewed from any angle, the appellants-claimants are bound to succeed and, accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the civil miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed with costs.