IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 27-01-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3174 OF 2004 Between: V.V.L. Narasimha Rao. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3174 OF 2004 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is directed against the order dated 31- 05-2004 passed in O.A.A. No.100 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.100 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. No.100 of 2003 for compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in a train accident between Pandekal and Gooty railway stations during the intervening night of 20/21-12-2002. It is clearly pleaded in the application that the applicant accompanied by his wife, daughter-in-law and grand daughter were traveling from Kacheguda to Bangalore in a reserved compartment with coach No.S-14 in train No.7685 Kacheguda – Bangalore express with a group ticket and during the travel he fell down from his berth and sustained injuries following which he filed the same. 4. The respondent filed his written statement admitting the accident and claiming the amount sought to be excessive and exorbitant. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial : 1. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in the train accident of train No.7685 Kachiguda – Bangalore express, if so, to what extent the applicant is entitled to claim? 2. To what relief? 6. The applicant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which are medical documents. On behalf of the respondent, Dr. M.D. Naik, who accompanied the injured persons in the accident, was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R-1 was marked. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant sustained only minor injuries and partly allowed the application awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed. 8. In the present appeal it is the plea of the applicant that the amount awarded is very low and it is reasonable to award the amount actually claimed. 9. In order to dispose of the Appeal, the following points are to be examined and decided : 1. Whether the applicant placed sufficient evidence in order to grant the compensation actually claimed? 2. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion? 3. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation actually claimed? 10. As per the medical record, the applicant received injuries on his right knee and right ankle which were simple in nature about which there is no dispute. Further, examining the gravity of the injuries and the probable pain the applicant would have suffered and also the consequential treatment awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- is quite reasonable. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal ultimately, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 27-01- 2011. DSH