HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.396 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.128 of 2001 dated 31.01.2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the said O.A.A. For convenience sake, refer the parties as they are arrayed in the application from now onwards. The application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act r/w Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 to grant compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- for sustaining amputation of his left leg above knee of the applicant following fall from a train and receiving injuries. In this context, the plea of the applicant is as follows: On 01.04.2001, he along with his friend B.Rambabu was proceeding from Nidubrolu to Vijayawada by general compartment in train No.8690 Alleppy – Bokarao Express, holding a seasonal ticket and standing near a door of the compartment and then the same door hit him, as a result of which, he fell down and received injuries near Vijayawada yard. Further, while the train was in slow motion, his friend got down from the train and rushed to the spot and immediately shifted him to Government University Hospital for treatment but no doctors were available in the hospital to treat him, as it happened to be a Sunday and thereafter his friend took him to Charitasri hospital, Vijayawada where his left leg was amputated while rendering necessary treatment. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicant and further claiming that no untoward incident took place at the said plotform on the relevant date and no train ticket of the injured/applicant was produced and there was no such untoward incident to uphold the claim. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.8690 travelling from Nidubrolu to Vijayawada on 01.04.2001? 2. Whether the Applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train near bus stand at Vijayawada on account of hit by the door of the compartment as alleged? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.3,20,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged incident? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicant, he got examined himself as A.W.1 and the co- passenger was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3, which are attested copy of discharge summary issued by the said private hospital along with a copy of police intimation, a copy of his statement dated 02.04.2001 recorded by RPHC 514 in a private hospital at Vijayawada, and original season ticket of injured/applicant respectively. The Tribunal dismissed the application, observing: “It may be noted that Ex.A1 is the season ticket issued in the name of the Applicant for his journey as daily commuter, but on the basis of this season ticket it cannot be said that on 1.4.2001 while the deceased as coming by 8690 express he fell down from the train while it was entering Vijayawada railway station yard. It is pertinent to note that the fall was not seen by any of the railway official on duty though the timing was 7.30AM. AW.2 who said to have got down from the train on the platform had not reported to Station Superintendent or Government Railway Police and when the train halted, he said to have shifted the applicant injured to Govt. University Hospital straightly for treatment. AW.2 in his affidavit has stated that the injured was given treatment in University Hospital and Outpatient chit was given, but for the reasons best known it is not filed. Further, no steps were taken to show that the name of the applicant was entered into any accident register of University General Hospital, Vijayawada. In all MLC cases there shall be an entry of the incident in the Accident Register. Ex.A, Discharge Summary, given by private hospital shows a cop of police intimation in which it is mentioned that the Applicant was admitted at 1.15PM on 1.4.2001. In the column of ‘place at which injury or accident or alleged attack occurred; it is noted as ‘Near Pandit Nehru Bus Stand, Railway crossing’ and ‘run over by train’. Discharge Summary, Ex.A2, which was signed on 3.4.2001 it is noted as accidental fall from the running train. When the time of incident was at 7.30 A.M. On 1.4.2001, it is not explained why there was delay till 1.15 PM till admission in private hospital. Even according to AW.2, since no Doctor was available in University Hospital, he was taken to a private hospital. The link document of University Hospital is not filed to show that he was taken there at first and later he was shifted to a private hospital at 1.15PM. The evidence led in the case raises any amount of suspicion and doubt as to how the incident had taken place. Ex.A2, statement recorded by the police on 2.4.2001 at 10.00 AM after lapse of 24 hours”. So, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of A.Ws.1 & 2 and dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that no document was produced to the effect that he was admitted in the University General Hospital, Vijayawada and Ex.A.1 discharge summary provides that there was delay of nearly 5 hours in admitting the deceased applicant in the private hospital. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased tried to cross the railway track at Pandit Nehru bus stand and the train ran over him and it is not a case of bona fide travel and no document was filed to uphold the evidence of A.W.2 to the effect that he accompanied the applicant for necessary treatment subsequent to the accident and hence the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below calls no interference of this Court and therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 13th April, 2011 PNV