IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1192 of 2008. Date:30.08.2011 Between:- A.Krishna Murthy ..Appellant/Applicant And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 06.07.2005, in O.A.A.No.239 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellant/applicant under 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 him in a railway accident that took place on 18.05.1999 was dismissed. 2. The appellant/applicant filed the O.A.A. stating that on 18.05.1999, he went to Narsapur railway station with a view to go to Tanuku for doing coolie work, purchased a journey ticket to travel from Narsapur to Tanuku and boarded train No.7241 Narsapur-Visakhapatnam Simhadri Link Express. When the train halted at Tanuku railway station at 11.40 a.m., he tried to get down from the train but due to heavy rush and luggage obstructing him, he was unable to get down immediately, and when he was getting down, the train started with a jerk due to which, he accidentally slipped and fell down, and both his hands were severed. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that there was no heavy rush or heavy luggage or the train started with jerk at Tanuku station after its stop. There is no report of any passenger falling down at Tanuku station on that day. The applicant was not a bona fide passenger and no express journey ticket was sold at Narsapur station for Tanuku by 7421 express on 18.05.1999 or 19.05.1999 and thereby, denied the contention of the applicant regarding purchase of ticket. 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 train No.7241 Narsapur-Visakhapatnam Simhadri Link Express travelling from Narsapur to Tanuku on 18.05.1999? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Tanuku 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? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he purchased a ticket and during the course of untoward incident, the applicant lost the ticket; that the respondent failed to rebut the evidence of A.W.1 to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the evidence of R.W.1 would clearly go to show that no ticket was issued from Narsapur to Tanuku on the date of incident so as to infer that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he 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 satisfied, 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. In respect of the untoward incident is concerned, there is no dispute that the deceased had fallen from the train while travelling in a passenger train. Even the respondent/railway administration did not deny or dispute about the untoward incident whereunder the injured sustained amputation of left hand at the shoulder joint and amputation of right hand below the elbow joint. 12. With regard to the aspect of whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he purchased a ticket at Narsapur to go to Tanuku in a passenger train and at the time of incident, he lost the ticket. There cannot be any dispute that under Section 124-A of the Act, the initial burden is on the applicant to establish that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. The statement of A.W.1 remained unchallenged. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.1. If the evidence of A.W.1 is to be accepted as true and correct, he had purchased a ticket to travel from Narsapur to Tanuku. 13. Now, coming to the rebuttal evidence, the railway administration examined R.W.1, who is the Deputy Station Master. His oral statement is to that effect that no ticket was issued on the date of incident to any passenger to travel in a passenger train from Narsapur to Tanuku, but the applicant filed an Interlocutory Application to summon the Ticket Collection Register, which was dismissed. Challenging the same, a Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court whereunder that petition was allowed directing the railway administration to produce the Ticket Collection Register of Tanuku station, but the respondent/railway administration, for the reasons best known to them, inspite of giving direction by this Court, has not produced the register. The Court may presume that the evidence, which could be and is not produced, would if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The relevant evidence is withheld by railway administration. If the railways willfully withholds evidence, the Court can draw presumption to its disadvantage consistent with the facts admitted or proved. No explanation was given by the respondent for not producing the Ticket Collection Register in pursuance of the direction given by this Court. Therefore, when they willfully failed to produce the relevant document which throws light as to whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger or not, certainly, the burden standing on the respondent/railway administration has not been discharged. Therefore, the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. As the evidence of A.W.1 practically remained unchallenged, an implicit reliance can be placed on his evidence. If the evidence of A.W.1 is to be accepted, it is clear that he was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket. Therefore, the two requirements are established and the appellant is entitled to the compensation. But the Tribunal did not consider these aspects in right perspective and came to wrong conclusion. 14. With regard to the amputation of left hand at the level of shoulder, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- and for amputation of right hand below the elbow, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. However, the compensation shall not exceed Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). The appellant is entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of realization. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1192 of 2008. Date:30.08.2011 AMD