IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.531 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 Between:- The Union of India, rep.by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Syed Jani Basha .. Respondent/Applicant JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 06.02.2006 in O.A.A.No.303 of 2002 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 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 25.03.2002 was allowed. 2 . The respondent/applicant filed the O.A.A. stating that on 25.03.2002, when the applicant was travelling from Kavali to Eluru by train No.7487 express, he slipped and fell down from the train at Nuzvid yard, sustained injuries and his both legs were amputated below the knee. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Eluru where he was given treatment. 3. The appellant/respondent filed a counter stating that no untoward incident happened and that the incident had happened due to the negligence of the applicant and the Guard of the train has not reported about the incident and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 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 in question? 2. Whether the applicant had sustained injuries due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Act? 3. Relief and costs? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. 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 under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased had not fallen from the express train at Nuzvid and that no incident had been reported to the Station Superintendent and that as the applicant was not a bona fide passenger, he is not entitled to any compensation. Ex.A-1 is the memo sent by the Deputy Station Superintendent, Nuzvid stating that one person had fallen from train No.7487 at KM No.469/32 and he is alive, therefore, he was sent to treatment to Eluru. The statement of the applicant was recorded on 26.03.2002 wherein he recited that while he was travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket, he accidentally fell down and sustained injuries. Xerox copy of the ticket was filed which shows that the ticket bearing No.36258 was for Rs.69/-. Because it was a xerox copy, the said document was not marked. If it is not a genuine ticket, it is for the railway administration to establish that ticket bearing No.36258 was not issued by the competent authority to the passenger to travel from Kavali to Eluru. Therefore, when that aspect has not been seriously disputed in the Tribunal, it discloses that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. In view of the fact that he accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of both the legs below the knee, which may be possible by ran over by a running train. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the compensation. The Medical Certificate and certificate issued by the Physically Handicapped Board would clearly go to show that both the legs below the knee of the applicant were amputated. Therefore, when the amputation is covered by Item No.3 of Part II of Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the applicant is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/-. That is the reason why the Tribunal granted Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the applicant and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. In view of the fact that pending the appeal, the applicant died, the legal representatives of the respondent have to be brought on record in accordance with law. For the purpose of bringing the legal heirs, the claim petition in the Tribunal can be said to be pending. After the legal heirs come on record, they are equally entitled to an equal share in the compensation awarded. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.531 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 AMD