Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Union of India, represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, being aggrieved by the decree and order made in O.A.A.No.265/1998 dated 26-12-2001 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. 2. Respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants in O.A.A.No.265/98 specified supra. The wife and the minor children of one deceased Nakka Srinivasarao filed the aforesaid O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on the ground that the said Nakka Srinivasarao, hereinafter referred to as “deceased” for the purpose of convenience, was done to death by virtue of an alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train while travelling from Eluru to Vijayawada by Train No.426 – Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada Passenger, on 26-9-1998. The Railway Claims Tribunal, hereinafter in short referred to as “Tribunal”, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of A.W.1 to A.W.3 and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and further examined R.W.1 and on appreciation of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the respondents/claimants are entitled to compensation amount and the 1st respondent/1st applicant was held to be entitled for apportioned amount of Rs.1 lakh and respondents 2 and 3/applicants 2 and 3, are entitled to apportionment of Rs.1.5 lakhs each. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been preferred. 3. Sri T.S. Venkataramana, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would maintain that the Tribunal had totally erred in awarding the compensation since it is a case of suicide. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence and also the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and would contend that even in the light of the evidence of A.W.3, the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the deceased having vexed with his life because of the financial problems had committed suicide and hence in the light of the same the order made by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. 4. Per contra, Sri K.S.N. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents/claimants would contend that in fact the claimants had examined A.W.3 who deposed that on some information he had recorded so and there is no acceptable evidence in this regard to show that there were certain financial problems and due to the same the deceased had committed suicide. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to certain findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and would contend that in the light of the said findings, the awarding of compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as “claimants” and “respondent” as arrayed in O.A.A.No.265/98 on the file of the Tribunal. 7. The claim application was filed by the wife of the deceased Nakka Lalitha along with minor sons of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train while travelling from Eluru to Vijayawada by Train No.426 – Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada Passenger, on 26-9-1998. It is stated that the deceased went to Eluru to the house of his uncle K.V.Somabrahmam to see his grand mother who was seriously ill and stayed there for one day and that on 26-9-1998 in the evening while returning to Vijayawada he had been dropped at the railway station by his uncle K.V.Somabrahmam at Powerpet railway station and that he purchased ticket from Powerpet to Vijayawada bearing No.13306 and boarded Train No.426 Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada passenger in a general compartment. It is also the case of the claimants that while travelling he slipped and fell down accidentally at Vatlur railway station when the train was leaving the platform and sustained injuries and died on the spot at about 19.45 hours and the journey ticket was with the Government Railway Police, Eluru. 8. The respondent in the application resisted the same pleading that the death of the deceased was not due to the untoward incident of falling from the Train No.426 but it was due to the suicide committed by the deceased. 8. The respondent in the application resisted the same pleading that the death of the deceased was not due to the untoward incident of falling from the Train No.426 but it was due to the suicide committed by the deceased. The contents of the inquest report also had been relied upon and hence specific stand was taken that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever in the light of the provisions of the Indian Railways Act. 9. Before the Tribunal, the following Issues were settled: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Srinivasa Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.426 Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada passenger travelling from Powerpet – Vijayawada on 26-9-98? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? 10. The 1st applicant filed affidavit and apart from the evidence of the 1st applicant as A.W.1, K.V. Somabrahmam, her relative was examined as A.W.2 and A.W.3 H.C.650, the Investigating Officer, also was examined. Ex.A-1 is a copy of the F.I.R., Ex.A-2 is a copy of the inquest report, Ex.A-3 is the death report, Ex.A-4 is a copy of the Post Mortem report and Ex.A-5 is the Family Member card. As against this evidence, one Sivaiah, Railway Porter, was examined as R.W.1 who just deposed that after the train leaving Vatlur Railway Station at 19.39 hours some passengers shouted and informed that one male dead body was lying by the side of the track at Vatlur Railway Station on Vijayawada side and he rushed there along with the Station Superintendent and noticed the dead body of the deceased. The Tribunal recorded findings in detail commencing from paras 7 to 20 and ultimately made an order allowing the award of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs specifying the apportionments to be made in relation thereto. 11. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by both the Counsel, the Points which arise for consideration to be decided in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as hereunder: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal while awarding compensation to be in any way disturbed or modified or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 12. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal while awarding compensation to be in any way disturbed or modified or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 12. The 1st applicant filed her affidavit and her relative also had sworn to the affidavit in support of the affidavit filed by the 1st applicant. The Investigating Officer was examined as A.W.3. A.W.1 had averred in the affidavit that her deceased husband was working as a Tailor and was residing at Tenali and that the deceased went to Eluru from Tenali to the house of his maternal uncle, A.W.2, to see his old grand mother V. Ramanujamma who was seriously ill and the deceased stayed there on the night of 25-9-1998 at Eluru and while he was returning on the next day, A.W.2 had taken the deceased on his scooter to Powerpet Railway Station and dropped him and that her husband/deceased purchased journey ticket from Powerpet to Vijayawada bearing No.13306 and boarded Train No.426 Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada passenger in general compartment in the presence of A.W.2. It is also her specific case that while travelling, the deceased fell down at Vatlur Railway Station when the train started with sudden movement and jerk. The police held inquest over the dead body and during the inquest the police had described the death of the deceased as suicidal death due to financial problems. A.W.1 had taken a specific stand that the said conclusion drawn by the police is not based on any evidence whatsoever and further A.W.1 specified that the police demanded bribe from Somabrahmam and Somabrahmam refused to comply with their demand and hence such problem was created. A.W.2, Somabrahmam, in all material particulars had corroborated the evidence of A.W.1. This witness had stated that he had dropped the deceased at Railway Station and the deceased purchased railway ticket from Powerpet to Vijayawada and he saw the deceased boarding Train No.426 Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada passenger in general compartment in his presence. This witness also had stated about the falling and other particulars and this witness rushing to the spot and identifying the dead body and informing the same by way of telephone to the family members of the deceased at Tenali. This witness also had stated about the falling and other particulars and this witness rushing to the spot and identifying the dead body and informing the same by way of telephone to the family members of the deceased at Tenali. It is also stated that at the time of inquest the journey ticket was found in the pant pocket of the deceased and he was also examined during inquest and his signatures were taken on blank papers and specifically this witness stated that the Police Head Constable demanded huge amount and as he failed to comply with the demand the police held in the inquest report that the deceased died on account of committing suicide. It is also stated that the brother of the deceased Nakka Krishna Murthy came to Eluru on 27-9-1998 at about 5 P.M. after conducting post mortem and the dead body was handed over to them for performing last rites. A.W.1 and A.W.2 were cross-examined, but nothing serious had been elicited except the relationship between certain of the witnesses and the applicants. 13. A.W.3, Head Constable, deposed about Ex.A-1 F.I.R. and also securing mediators Somabrahmam and Bhaskar Rao and when he went there Padala Satyanarayana also was present and in their presence he held inquest over the dead body and the mediators Venkata Bhaskar Rao and Satyanarayana, who are residents of Vijayawada came to know about the death of the deceased from Somabrahmam through phone and they reached the spot. This witness also stated that he had recorded the statement of P. Sivaiah, Yard Porter and Dy. S.S. Madhava Sharma. This witness also stated that the Polapureddy Subba Rao, stated before him that the deceased died by committing suicide and he did not ask him the source of his information. Nakka Krishna Murthy stated before him that he received telephonic information that the deceased died by falling from the train while travelling from Powerpet to Vijayawada and he did not inquire from whom he got the telephonic information. A.W.3 stated that this witness along with the mediators came to the conclusion on the basis of statement of K.Subba Rao and Krishna Murthy that the deceased had committed suicide. It is also stated that he had opined in the inquest report that his own accord the deceased vexed with his life having financial problems had committed suicide. Ex.A-2 is a copy of the inquest report. It is also stated that he had opined in the inquest report that his own accord the deceased vexed with his life having financial problems had committed suicide. Ex.A-2 is a copy of the inquest report. It is needless to say that the evidence of R.W.1 does not throw much light except to the effect that after hearing some shouts he had gone and seen the dead body of the deceased. 14. Reliance also was placed on the decisions of this Court in Sk. Moulana Vs. D.M., APSRTC, Banswada Depot, Nizamabad ( 2004(1) ALD 445 = 2004 (1) ALT 100 ), General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Vs. E. Rammohan Rao ( 2004 (6) ALD 283 and Union of India Vs. K. Parvathamma AIR 2005 A.P. 106 ). 15. As already referred to supra, the Tribunal recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that what had been recorded by the Police during the inquest to the effect that it is a case of suicide cannot be a sustainable stand especially in the absence of any acceptable evidence in this regard. The evidence of the Investigating Officer A.W.3 had been dealt with at length and the admission made by A.W.3 that he had not recorded the statements of mediators also had been taken note of and the fact that A.W.2 is one of the mediators to the inquest report also had been considered and what had been stated by A.W.2 had been taken into consideration. In the light of the findings recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the clear evidence of A.W.1 and A.W.2 and also the nature of evidence of A.W.3 and R.W.1, in the absence of any other acceptable evidence, merely because in the inquest it had been recorded by the Police for extraneous reasons that the deceased committed suicide being vexed with his life and that too in the light of the evidence of A.W.3 that on some information given by one Subba Rao the same had been recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. 16. In the light of the findings recorded by this Court, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.