THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1002 OF 2010 19.10.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Mr. Budde Rajesham. …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1002 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 20.08.2010 in O.A.A No.528 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed in part by the Tribunal. 2) The applicant filed the claim application stating that he purchased a ticket to go to Odela and was waiting at platform No.2 for a passenger train, that a metal rod hurled from Rajadhani Express, which was passing therefrom, hit him with great force on his right side of the body whereby he fell on the platform and became unconscious, that he was sent to Surya hospital, Godavarikhani by the railway authorities and later to NIMS hospital at Hyderabad where he was treated for injuries to his ribs, spinal cord and lungs. 3) The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the claim of the applicant does not fall under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore it is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, that the ticket was purchased at 16.22 hours whereas the accident was alleged to have taken place at 3.30 p.m, as per NIMS medical report and hence the applicant was not a bona fide passenger and that the ticket was purchased subsequently to bolster his claim, which was also pointed out in DRM’s report and that this was a case of self-inflected injury for which the railway is not liable to pay compensation. 4) The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of a passenger train and was hit by a metal rod hurled through 2430 (Rajadhani Express train) on 05.07.2006 when he was on the platform to board a train? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of the train accident? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 5) On behalf of the applicant, AW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondent railways, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 6) The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application in part granting compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment. Challenging the same, the present 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) Learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers and that Ex.A2, Original ticket, was purchased subsequently to bolster his claim and hence, the applicant is not entitled for any compensation. 9) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended that the applicant sustained severe injuries, that Ex.A3 - Discharge record and Ex.A4 - out patient card show that the applicant/claimant suffered injuries to his chest and spine as a result of the accident that occurred on 05.07.2006 at 16.22 hours, that Ex.R2 – Deputy Railway Manager’s report would go to show that the incident occurred on 05.07.2006 and also contains the message of Deputy Station Superintendent (Ex.A1) issued to GRP on 12.07.2006 to the effect that one person sitting on platform No.2 was hit with some metal object hurled through down 2430 Rajdhani Express while it was passing, as informed by co-passengers sitting nearby, that the applicant was having Ex.A2 – Original ticket, dated 05.07.2006, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the same and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10) There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the injured sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train carrying passengers with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the railways want to resist the claim, it has to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the injured is not a bona fide passenger or that the case of the railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11) Insofar as the aspect whether the applicant is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, it is contended by the railways that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger. But, the original ticket (Ex.A2) shows that the injured purchased the same on 05.07.2006 to go to Odela and that he was waiting at platform No.2 for a passenger train. When once a witness has stated a fact and the same has not been denied or disputed, it can be inferred that the said fact is admitted. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence that the injured/applicant was a bona fide passenger waiting on the platform to travel in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket. 12) While the applicant was sitting on platform, he was hit with a metal object which had come from the express train. A violent attack is an act against some one aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill with an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force. In other words, using unlawful act intended to hurt, damage or kill some one. 13) The defence of negligence on the part of the respondent/applicant resulting in his sustaining injuries is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railways are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, has rightly granted compensation to the applicant. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 14) Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 19-10-2011 ES