THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1109 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 19.08.2005 passed in O.A.A.No.217 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by the applicant, who is the respondent herein, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident met by him at Sanathnagar Railway Station on 10.02.1991, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-. Appellant is the South Central Railways represented by its General Manager, Secunderabad. Respondent, who is the injured, is the applicant in the said O.A.A. It appears that the alleged accident in this case occurred prior to the constitution of the Railway Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the respondent-applicant initially laid a suit being O.S.No.198 of 1991 on the file of the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, on 09.09.2001, claiming compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident met by him on 10.02.1991 at Sanathnagar Railway Station. According to the respondent-applicant, he along with four others went to board Parli Baidyanath passenger train at Sanathnagar Railway Station on 10.02.2001 at 10.30 p.m. to go to Latur and while he was entering into the said train, he had fallen down between the platform and the train on account of abnormal distance of four feet between the platform and the train, and the train ran over his both legs resulting in amputation of his both legs, and therefore, he claimed damages. The Railways denied the allegations made against it and stated that even assuming that the alleged accident had taken place, it may be due to gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the applicant while boarding the train, and it cannot be made responsible for that. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, framed the issues, and when trial was commenced, in view of constitution of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the applicant filed I.A.No.686 of 2000 in the said O.S.No.198 of 1994, seeking to transfer the suit on to the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was allowed by order dated 10.08.2000 directing return of the plaint to the applicant to present it in the Court having jurisdiction. Subsequently, the claim application of the applicant was taken up for consideration by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, as O.A.A.No.217 of 2001. On behalf of the applicant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the Railways, RW.1 was examined. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the applicant was a bona fide passenger; the respondents have failed to show that there was no defect or any shortcoming at the time of the incident on the fateful day; the evidence on record was very clinching to show that the applicant had fallen down from the train while he was boarding into it; no negligence can be attributed to the applicant and the respondent was liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by the applicant for the untoward incident of a fall from the train and, therefore, by the impugned order dated 19.08.2005 allowed the application in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- to the applicant. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. Sri B.H.R.Choudary, the learned counsel for the appellant- Railways strenuously contended that the alleged accident occurred on 10.12.1991, whereas the Railway Claims Tribunal was constituted on 01.08.1994 and, therefore, the application filed before the Tribunal was not maintainable. He also submitted that the injuries, if at all, sustained by the respondent are self-inflicted injuries caused due to his own negligence and, absolutely, there was no negligence on the part of the Railways. He further submitted that there are some discrepancies in marking the documents. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent- applicant nor there is any representation on his behalf. So far as the contention as to the maintainability of the application by the Tribunal is concerned, it does not stand scrutiny of law, since it is a fact that immediately after the alleged accident, the respondent-applicant filed a suit in O.S.No.198 of 1994 before the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, and, thereafter, in view of the formation of the Railways Claims Tribunal, he presented his case before the said Tribunal. The respondent-applicant was, in fact, a bona fide passenger. The distance of four feet between the platform and the train is not in dispute. Falling of the respondent-applicant from the train while boarding into it and sustaining injuries are very much proved, in the light of the documents marked as Exs.A8 to A10. In these circumstances and in the absence of producing any evidence by the Railways to show that there was no defect or any shortcoming at the time of the incident on the fateful day, as observed by the Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the other grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Railways are trivial in nature, apart from being not sustainable in law. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer with no illegality or impropriety and the Tribunal was justified in awarding the amount to the respondent. The civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 12.08.2010 v v