THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.316 OF 2010 DATED:08-12- 2010. Between Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant And Md.Anwar Basha …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.316 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 05-02-2010 in O.A.A No.513 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The brief facts are that on 24-07-2005, the claimant with a view to go to Vapi from Gunakal on business work, boarded the train No.6010 Chennai-Mumbai holding a journey from reservation ticket bearing PNR No.423-9426717, coach No.S-8 Berth Nos.69 and 70 to go to Mumbai and from there to Vapi by train No.9011 Gujarat Express in Coach No.SC-4, PNR No.826/1301661. While traveling, he got down at Mantralayam Railway Station for having fruit juice and re-boarded the train and while he was going inside the compartment, suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the train in between platform and the train due to jerks, as a result, his right hand was severely crushed and separated and also sustained severe head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital at Adoni by the Railway officials through Railway Police and thereafter he was shifted to Kurnool, where his right hand was amputated just below the shoulder and 25 sutures were made on the head. Hence, the application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stating that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. As per the message sent by Station Master, Mantralayam, the applicant tried to catch the running train, which was in a speed of approximately 60 KMPH and got injured and hence, it is deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant and the injuries sustained by him are self inflicted injuries. The Railways denied that the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train No.6010 and hence, it prays to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.6010 Chennai-Mumbai CST Mail, traveling from Guntakal to Mumbai and Mumbai to Vapi on 24-07-2005? 2.Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4.To what relief? 5. During the enquiry, the applicant examined himself as AW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the Railways, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident and therefore, the Railways are liable to pay the compensation, and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- towards compensation and directed the Railways to pay the same within two months from the date of order with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application to the date of order and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. It is the case of the applicant that due to sudden jerk, he fell in between the platform and train, as a result, his right hand was crushed and later it was amputated in the hospital. The fact that the applicant was a bona fide passenger in the train, which was going from Guntakal to Vapi is not in dispute. The evidence of the applicant coupled with FIR would go to show that due to sudden jerk to the train, he fell down. On behalf of the Railways, R.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the Station Master and Guard were examined. They are not the eye witnesses to the incident because the applicant was on the rear side of the train. Insofar as Station Master is concerned, his evidence is also not sufficiently established that he saw the applicant trying to board the moving train. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.1 and the recitals in FIR, which would go to show that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant. Once an untoward incident has taken place and that the applicant was said to be the bona fide passenger in the train, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the negligence on the part of the applicant. But there is no evidence to show the there is some negligence on the part of applicant, resulting the accident. Therefore, the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly awarded compensation and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:08.12.2010 Hsd