THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.688 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is directed against the order passed in O.A.A.No.377 of 2002, dated 03.05.2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Branch at Secunderabad allowing the claim made there. The said application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124 (A) and 125 of the Act for awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the applicant/appellant on the ground of falling down from train No.6328 and receiving injuries at Dornakal Railway Station on 12.11.2002. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.Ashok Kumar on behalf of the respondent. The claim of the respondent is total denial of the plea of the applicant/appellant. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they arrayed in the application. The Tribunal framed the following issues for disposal:- 1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.6328 travelling from Khammam to Warangal on 12.11.2002? 2. Whether the Applicant has sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train after passing Dornakal Railway Station? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicant, she got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the respondent, the guard of the train was examined as RW.1, but no documents were marked. The Tribunal allowed the application partly granting a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- to the applicant and directing the 3rd respondent to deposit the said amount within sixty days, failing which, to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till realisation of the amount and further directing that on deposit of the amount, Rs.60,000/- should be paid to the applicant and the balance amount should be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been preferred. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that according to the Station Superintendent one injured person was on the plat form of the railway station on the alleged date of accident, whereas according to the guard of the railway station no untoward incident took place there and admittedly the applicant was not in possession of relevant ticket whereas she claimed that in the process of accident the ticket was lost and therefore, it is to be held that she was not a bonafide passenger of the train to award compensation and the Tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. The point for determination is whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train or not and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not? It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the applicant received injuries on the relevant date and further P.W.1 gave cogent and acceptable evidence about the accident, which was not rebutted. So, the claim that the Station Superintendent found the applicant with injuries on the platform is sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicant that she fell down from the train and received injuries, which disproves the claim of RW.1 that no such untoward incident took place. Further, the applicant as AW.1 gave evidence in accordance with her claim and nothing was elicited against her. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her claim. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no need to interfere with the same. There is no dispute about the quantum of compensation awarded. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date: 21-03-2011. Rns