THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.817 of 2006 ORDER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act is directed against the order of dismissal passed in O.A.A.No.240 of 2001 dated 05.06.2006 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The appellant herein is the applicant and the respondent herein is the respondent in the application before the tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as applicant and respondent as arrayed in the application before the Tribunal. 4. The application was filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- on the ground that the applicant traveled by Train No.323 Fast Passenger on 12.06.2001 and when the train reached Mancherial railway station he slipped and fell down accidentally due to the jerks of the train and received injuries and later, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial for necessary treatment and he was a bonafide passenger of the train. 5. On behalf of the railways a written statement was filed to the effect that the injured was not a bonafide passenger and there was no untoward incident on the date of accident, with a plea to dismiss the application. 6. On the strength of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.323 Bhadrachalam Road – Sirpurkagaznagar fast passenger on 12.06.2001? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train before alighting on 12.06.2001? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- as applied for? 4. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. 8. Basing upon the material available, the tribunal dismissed the application. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 10. The points to be considered are: 1. Whether it is proved that the applicant traveled by the train or it is proved that he was not a bonafide passenger of the train? 2. Whether the tribunal examined the matter and came to the conclusion properly and the order passed by the tribunal is sustainable or not? P O I N T No.1: 11. The applicant gave evidence as per the pleas taken by him. Ex.A.1 is claimed to be a message issued by the Station Superintendent, Mancherial railway station to the Sub-inspector, Government Railway Police on 12.06.2001 with regards to the accident. Ex.A.2 is certificate of the Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police, Bellampallli to the effect that the applicant had fallen from the running train No.323 Singareni passenger on 12.06.2001 while going from Bhadrachalam road to Sirpur Kaghaznagar at 13.00 hours at the end of the platform No.1 Mancherial Railway Station and received injuries. Ex.A.3 is his photos (3 in No.). Ex.A.4 is O.P. chit said to be issued by University General Hospital, Vijayawada to the effect that the applicant was admitted in the hospital on 13.06.2001 at 7.35 p.m. 12. Further, R.W.1 deposed as per the claim of the respondent getting marked Ex.R.1 and he also deposed that one person fell down from the train and he was admitted in the hospital but he did not give the name of any person, who fell down from the train. 13. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A.1 is not a original or a certified copy so it is not an admissible document and further Ex.A.2, which is not a public document, cannot be taken into consideration. In Ex.A.4 it is provided that on 13.06.2001 at 7.35 p.m. the applicant was admitted into the University General Hospital, Vijayawada and he was treated and then it was found that he got injuries three days old, which disproves the claim of the applicant that he received injuries on 12.06.2001. 14. Even though R.W.1 stated in his evidence that a male person fell down from the train and he was admitted in the hospital, the same is not sufficient to link the applicant with the accident. It is not the specific claim of the R.W.1 that it refers to the applicant only. Further, it is important that F.I.R. copy and inquest report, were not produced before the Tribunal. 15. There is no basis to say that the applicant traveled by the train and fell down and received injuries. No doubt, the respondent was burdened with establishing that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger of the train, it can be ascertained basing upon the evidence adduced. The respondent is not supposed to place evidence beyond its capacity. P O I N T No.2: 16. The tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the circumstances, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 28th February, 2011 KSP