IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1065 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 Between:- M.Lakshmi Narayana ..Appellant/Applicant And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 22.03.2006, in O.A.A.No.95 of 2000 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 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 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 22.11.1999 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: On 22.11.1999, while the appellant/applicant was travelling by 460 Passenger by standing beside the door and when the train was reaching Nidadavolu Railway Station, he was accidentally pushed out by some other passengers as a result, he fell down from the running train due to which his left foot went under the wheel of the train and his left foot fingers were cut, and he also suffered other bodily injuries. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that in the absence of any untoward incident reported by the Guard of the train or any station authorities, the case is not an untoward incident within the provisions of the Railways Act and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation and that the applicant is not a bona fide passenger. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant Laxminarayana was a bona fide passenger of Train No.460 Passenger travelling from Kovvur to Tanuku on 22.11.1999? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Nidadavolu Railway Station, as alleged? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs as prayed for the 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 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 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. 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. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that Ex.A-2 would clearly go to show that the appellant sustained grievous injuries and his leg was amputated; and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the appellant failed to produce discharge summary and treatment particulars from the hospital; that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. The appellant was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. According to the appellant, while he was getting down from the train, he was pushed outside by the passengers accidentally as a result of which, he fell in between the platform and compartment and sustained cut injury to his left leg and he has taken treatment in the hospital at Rajahmundry. The discharge summary and the treatment particulars have not been furnished by the appellant to show that the said injury can be possible by falling while getting down from the train. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted time to produce necessary documents. Since it is a case of amputation, an opportunity can be given to the appellant to produce necessary evidence before the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court giving two months time to the appellant from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce necessary evidence and thereafter, two months time shall be given by the trial Court to the respondent to adduce its evidence. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1065 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 AMD