THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.717 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.06.2007 passed in O.A.A.No.100 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A.A. filed by the appellant seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward accident. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 08.10.2002 the appellant while travelling from Kazipet to Bhongir by Train No.7405 Krishna Express, slipped and fell down from the train, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. The appellant was shifted to Civil Area Hospital and thereafter to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. Since he sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his right hand, he filed the claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 3 The respondent-Railways contested the said claim petition denying the accident and also about the train journey by having valid ticket by the appellant and prays to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? ii. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward accident of accidental fall from the train? iii. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? iv. To what relief? 5 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal, not believing the version of the appellant, dismissed the said claim petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 6 Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? 7 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant in his evidence as A.W.1 clearly stated that he purchased a ticket and boarded the train and that the defence of negligence resulting in injuries to the appellant is not available to the Railway Administration and hence he is entitled for compensation. 8 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Railways opposed the same on the ground that the appellant failed to produce any ticket to show that he was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that he tried to get down from the running train and therefore, there was negligence on his part, resulting in injuries and hence the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. It is not in dispute that an untoward incident happened whereunder the appellant sustained grievous injuries and his right hand was amputated up to shoulder level. Even R.W.1, who is the Assistant Station Master, speaks about a person falling from the train and sustaining injuries. The discharge card would also go to show that the right hand of the appellant was amputated. So, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the appellant sustained injuries, as a result of which, his right hand was amputated up to the shoulder level. The next aspect is that the appellant must show that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. He has not produced any ticket, but his evidence is clear that he purchased a ticket worth about Rs.35/- and boarded the train and while travelling, he had fallen from it accidentally and sustained injuries. He has stated that his ticket was lost in the accident and clothes were torn. The evidence of A.W.1 with regard to purchasing a ticket to travel in the train carrying passengers on the date of accident remained unchallenged. When the statement has been given by a witness with regard to a particular fact and the same is not denied or disputed in the cross-examination, it can be presumed that such a fact is admitted. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Railway Administration to show that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger. Even assuming for a moment that the injuries are sustained by the appellant because of his negligence, the Railway Administration cannot avoid payment of compensation to the appellant because the defence of negligence is not available to it. There cannot be any dispute that Section 124A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. The claimant need not establish any negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124A of the Act. There is no evidence adduced by the Railway Administration to show that the appellant sustained self-inflicted injuries. Therefore, the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal and consequently came to a wrong conclusion. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident and he was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, he is entitled for compensation. As per column No.4 of part 3 of Schedule appended to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- for loss of a hand. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for Rs.2,40,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order till realization. 12 Hence this appeal is allowed and an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- is awarded to the appellant as compensation and the respondent shall pay the same with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J Dt:13.10.2011 kdl