THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.578 OF 2009 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 22-01-2009 in O.A.A No.330 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.80,000/- and directing the Railways to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment. 2 . On 01-04-2003 at Anantapur Railway Station, the applicant received injuries in an untoward incident with the involvement of the train bearing No.2628 express. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that there is no cause of action for the applicant as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c)(2) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The enquiry revealed that the ticket No.00082 was issued Ex-Anantapur to Bangalore and it was a Senior Citizen Concession ticket, which will be issued only to the persons who are aged 60 years and above. The applicant himself declared that he is aged 53 years and Government servant, that therefore, the applicant obtained the Senior Citizen Concession ticket by falsely declaring his age as 60 years or the ticket was procured by other means and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 55 r/w 137 of the Act, that the applicant cannot be treated as bona fide passenger under explanation to Section 124-A of the Act and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, certain issues were framed. During the course of enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of Railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 7. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways is with regard to grant of compensation. 8. It is not in dispute that the applicant (injured) was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers. He also sustained injuries while accidentally falling from the running train. A.W.1 who is the injured categorically stated that he lost second, third and fourth toes on the right foot and the posterior dislocation with fracture of acetabulum of left leg. It is evidenced from Ex.A3, which is the wound certificate issued by the doctor. Therefore, from the statement of A.W.1 coupled with the recitals in Ex.A3, it is clear that the applicant lost second, third and fourth toes. 9. It is contended by the learned standing counsel for the appellant that the applicant was having a Senior Citizen Concessions ticket, that the applicant is less than 60 years and hence, he is not a bona fide passenger. Though the applicant obtained Senior Citizen Concession ticket, but during the course of journey, the concerned Ticket Collector collected excess amount from the injured as he found to be aged less than 60 years. That means, he was having a valid ticket while traveling in the train. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly awarded compensation and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 11-08-2011 Hsd