IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.438 OF 2010 Date:25.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, rep.by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Chappati Annapurna .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 15.03.2010, in O.A.A.No.156 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondent/applicant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a railway accident that took place on 27.09.2003 was allowed in part. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: On 27.09.2003, the applicant was travelling along with her family members in Kakinada-Tirupathi passenger, and when the train was crossing Eluru station, she proceeded to the toilet and because of the movement of the train and rush of passengers, she fell down from the train at the station and received crush injuries as a result of which, her left leg was amputated. She purchased a ticket to travel from Kadiyam to Tirupathi, which was in the possession of GRP Eluru. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that their enquiries revealed that no ticket was sold on that day to travel from Kadiyam to Tirupathi or Tirumala Hills. The applicant was herself responsible for the injuries and the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, partly allowed the claim application and granted compensation to a tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, Railways filed the present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Railways contended that the applicant did not produce the ticket so as to infer that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that due to her own negligence, the incident has happened; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant contended that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Two requirements are to be satisfied in a claim for compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant. One is that a person sustained an injury in an untoward incident and secondly, he must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are established and proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Insofar as the aspect of bona fide passenger is concerned, A.W.1 has categorically stated that after purchasing the ticket, while she was boarding the train, due to sudden jerk, she fell down accidentally and sustained injury, and that the ticket was seized by the police. Sustaining of injuries by the applicant is not in dispute. The Guard of the train is examined as R.W.1. He stated that a lady named Annapurna tried to board the train and fell down between the platform and the train, and she had a ticket bearing No.01478 to travel from Kadiyam to Chirala. Ex.R-1 would clearly go to show that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and while she was boarding the train, she fell down in between the platform and the train accidentally and sustained the injury to her left foot. The ticket number, as noted in Ex.R-1, is not shown to be incorrect or invalid ticket. Therefore, the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the negligence on the part of the injured. The defence of negligence on the part of the injured is not available to the railway administration. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the railway administration does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.438 OF 2010 Date:25.08.2011 AMD