IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.235 OF 2006 Between: Jasti Srinivas. --- 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.235 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 16-12-2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.A. No.53 of 1999 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of his sustaining injuries in a train accident at Nidadavolu railway station, dismissing the claim. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.53 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicant on 15-12-1998 morning while travelling from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry by train No.2718 Ratnachal express, slipped and fell down from the train at Nidadavolu railway station, by which his hand was cut and separated and he also received other fractured injuries, for which he was admitted in the railway hospital Nidadavolu and then admitted in the Government District Hospital at Rajahmundry for treatment. Further, the applicant being a bona fide passenger of the train is entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the incident of fall of the applicant from the train on the relevant date and further claiming that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train whereas there was untoward incident and ultimately pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train No.2718 Ratnachal express travelling from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry on 15-12-1998? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Nidadavolu railway station? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got examined himself as AW.1 filing his sworn affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be relevant copies of discharge certificate dated 01-02- 1999, Certificate issued by the S.I. of Police, Nidadavolu, Government Railway Police, photos, G.D. entry dated 15-12-1998 and case sheet sent by Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Rajahmundry. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined and no document was marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that he failed to show any satisfactory evidence to the effect that he was a bona fide passenger of the train and his fall from the train was due to an untoward incident. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that it is purely a case of causing of injuries and the injured was examined before the Tribunal and he got filed supporting documentary evidence to uphold the claim but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that when it is the claim of the respondent that such untoward incident did not take place, it is for the applicant to establish at first that he in fact traveled by the train and further neither relevant ticket was produced before the Tribunal nor any explanation was given in that context and the Tribunal appreciated the matter properly and there is no reason to differ with the same. 10. Therefore it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the applicant placed satisfactory evidence to the effect that he happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the applicant has to be paid necessary compensation as claimed? 3) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 11. It is the evidence of the applicant as AW.1 that after his fall from the train he was lifted on to the platform and the Station Master of the railway station and also the Government Railway Police attended on him and was sent to the Government Hospital, Nidadovalu, where he was given first and then he was shifted to the Government District Hospital Rajahmundry, and it is his further evidence that the journey ticket and Rs.480/- kept in his short pocket were lost whereas, the Station Master at the place of accident found a cloth bag in which Rs.16,000/- was kept and handed over the same to his relatives. 12. It is pertinent to note here that according to the respondent, no such untoward incident took place. Further, no records of the Railways are produced with regards to the accident. Ex.A-1 the discharge certificate dated 01-02-1999 shows that the applicant was admitted as inpatient No.8 in the hospital on 15-12-1998 and there was amputation of his right leg, Ex.A-2 which is Xerox copy of the certificate issued by the S.I. of Police, Nidadavolu, Government Railway Police provides that one person fell from Ratnachal Express train on 15-12-1998 and was referred to the Government Hospital for treatment. Whereas, Ex.A-3 is photos of the applicant showing amputation and fractures, Ex.A-4 is the G.D. entry copy dated 5-12- 1998 produced by Nidadovalu, Government Railway Police in which there is no mention about the accident in question and Ex.A-5 is the case sheet copy sent by the Medical Superintendent of Government District Hospital, Rajahmundry, in which it is noted that Jasthi Srinivas, MLC No.8/98 accompanied by RPC 441 of Nidadovalu, Government Railway Police was admitted into the Government District Hospital, Rajahmundry on 15-12-1998 for treatment. Ex.A-2 can not be given any importance because it is only a certificate which can not be termed as a public document and also in view of the contents of Ex.A-4 to the effect that no G.D. entry was made by the G.R.P. about the accident. 13. There is no good basis to say that the applicant traveled by the train and fell down and received injuries. 14. Before asking the respondent to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train, there should be basis to say that the deceased was holding valid ticket travelling in the said train and slipped and fell down. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal, ultimately the Appeal is to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 24-02-2011. Dsh.