IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.978 of 2007 Date:11.04.2011 Between: B. Sujatha .....Petitioner AND Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.978 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against order dated 23.11.2007 passed in O.A.A.No.317 of 2002 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the petition in the Tribunal from now on words. The petitioner herein filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of the Railways Act seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest on account of injuries sustained by her as she fell down from Train No.7008, Hyderabad – Visakhapatnam Godavari Express while travelling in 2nd Class General Compartment of it on 21.10.2002. It is the case of the applicant is as follows: She went for medical check up from Dornakal to the Railway Hospital at Scunderabad with an attendant and on the same day evening after her medical check up, she went to Secunderabad Railway Station and purchased two train journey tickets to travel from Secunderabad to Khammam and boarded in 2nd class general compartment of Train No.7008, Hyderabad – Visakhapatnam Godavari Express to go to Khammam and from there to go to Dornakal by road. On the way, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in motion due to the jerks of the train when she was standing near a wash basin due to which both of her legs got severely crushed, cut and separated below her knees. She also lost her pregnancy as a result of the said accident. The respondent filed counter denying that she was not a bonafide passenger of the Train No.7008, Hyderabad – Visakhapatnam Godavari Express and also denying that she would fall within the ambit of Section 123(c ) 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (For short, the Act). In order to establish her claim, she got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. Doctor who is C. Ravinder who examined the applicant was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. Taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the dismissal order the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the applicant lost her ticket during the course of her journey and by virtue of Sections 54 and 55 of the Act, it is to be deemed that she travelled in the Train Godavari Express along with her attendant holding a valid ticket. He has further pleaded that such case falls within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A and Section 123 (c ) 2 of the Act and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and thereby dismissed the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that she happened to be wife of a Railway employee and as per the relevant rules and regulations, she was entitled to travel by the train on a pass to be given by the Railway Authorities being a passenger and it is quite surprising that admittedly she travelled in the train without holding any pass and no ticket was seized from her during her journey and therefore, it is to be deemed that she travelled in the said train without having any ticket. He further pleaded that quite significantly the person who is said to have accompanied her as her attendant was not examined in the same context and therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the applicant produced sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish that she was a bonafide passenger of the train No.7008 Godavari Express and she is entitled for any compensation as prayed for? Point: By virtue of Sections 54 and 55 of the Act, it is to be presumed that a passenger of a train got a valid ticket while travelling in the train. In order to establish that the applicant was a bonafide passenger, she did not adduce any supporting evidence before the Tribunal and even she did not examine the attendant who accompanied her during the course of travel in the train. Further, no ticket was seized from the applicant during her travel. There is also no evidence to say that she was pregnant. If so why she had not taken pass to do so. Under the circumstances, it is doubtful that she purchased any valid ticket from the Railway authorities. Further non-examination of the so-called attendant is to be taken into consideration seriously. Therefore, by virtue of these circumstances, I am of opinion that the presumption is rebutted. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent could able to establish that the applicant travelled without holding any valid ticket or pass issued by the Railway authorities. Hence, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 11th April, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.978 of 2007 Date:11.04.2011 Gk.