HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.435 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011 Between: Kambala Subbamma. …Appellant. And: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.435 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (1) This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against order dated 1-12-2005 passed in O.A.A.No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, Bench at Secunderabad. (2) The O.A.A. is filed under Section 16 of the Railway Tribunal Act, 124A and 125 of the Railway Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for injuries said to be sustained by the appellant/applicant in a train accident. (3) The appellant herein is the applicant and the respondent herein is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the application. (4) The case of the applicant is as follows: On 19-11-1999, while the applicant was travelling by general compartment in train No.137 Bhimavaram- Rajahmundry holding valid ticket, she was hit by a door of the compartment at Nidadavolu Railway Station while the train was at halt and therefore, she slipped and fell down from the train accidentally which resulted in causation of injuries to her. Further, with the help of railway staff, she was sent to the Government Hospital for treatment and later she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kakinada for further treatment. Further she was bonafide passenger of the train. Hence, she is entitled to the compensation claimed. (5) The Respondent filed its written statement totally denying the claim of the applicant. (6) On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.137 Bhimavaram – Rajahmundry passenger travelling from Kaldhari to Nidadavolu on 19-11-99? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Nidadavolu Railway station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief? (7) On behalf of the applicant, she got herself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 which happened to be certificate issued by the Government Railway Police at Nidavol and Discharge summary issued by the Government Hospital, Kakinada respectively. (8) Examining the material available on record, the tribunal held the issues 1 to 3 against the applicant and dismissed the application. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. (9) POINTS for consideration in the appeal: 1. It is to be considered as to whether the applicant travelled by the train and whether she was bonafide passenger. 2. Further it is to be ascertained as to whether the tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions. POINT Nos.1 and 2: It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly coupled with the evidence of the applicant as AW1 uphold the claim of the applicant to the effect that the applicant was shifted to the said Hospital from the place of accident and was given further treatment which are sufficient to establish that the applicant travelled by the train and fell down and received injuries. It is also his contention that the Government Railway Police collected the ticket of the deceased while shifting the applicant to the Government Hospital at Nidavolu at the outset whereas no efforts were made to summon the ticket to the Tribunal for necessary consideration. (10) Ex.A.1 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police of the year 1999 (actual date is not visible) certifies the claim of the applicant. But this document cannot be taken into consideration as it is not a public document and also as nobody was examined to prove the contents of it. However, as per Ex.A.2, she received fracture and she took necessary treatment in the Government Hospital from 19-11-1999 after her admission into the hospital at 11.45 P.M., on that day. But this record is not sufficient to hold that she travelled by the train and fell down and received injuries. Further when no steps have been taken so far to collect the corresponding ticket and mark it in evidence before the tribunal, an adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant. By remanding the matter to collect such evidence, I feel that no useful purpose would be served at this stage. (11) The tribunal examined the matter properly and hence, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and hence, it deserves to be dismissed. (12) In the result, this C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 8-2-2011. Dvs/Ksm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.435 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011