IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.10-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.927 OF 2006 Between: Mansingh. --- 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.927 OF 2006 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 17-10-2005, passed in O.A.A. No.220 of 1999, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on sustaining severe injuries in a railway accident, dismissing the claim. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.220 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 as set out in the application are as follows : The applicant had purchased a journey ticket and aboarded in the general compartment of train No.324 Manikgarh – Bhadrachalam Road Fast Passenger on 19-04-1999 and while traveling at about 02- 10 p.m. he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train due to sudden jerks of the train near Rallapet railway cabin and because of the impact of the accident his right leg was cut and also sustained other injuries and he was a bona fide passenger of the train, hence the application claiming the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the claims of the applicant and further claiming that he never traveled by the train and he was not a bona fide passenger of the train 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 train No.324 Manikgarh – Bhadrachalam fast passenger traveling from Sirpurkagaznagar to Mancherial on 19-04-1999? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Rallapet railway cabin? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-? 4) To what Relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is a certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, E.S.I. Hospital, Sirpurkagaznagar, to the effect that the applicant was referred to that hospital for treatment as he involved in a train accident and received injuries. Ex.A-2 is a certificate issued by the Government Railway Police on 28-04-1999 to the effect that the applicant involved in the accident and Ex.A-3 is photographs of the applicant and Ex.A-4 is discharge card issued by Sai Orthopedic Clinic, Mancherial for him. On behalf of the respondent, Chief Booking Clerk of Sirpurkagaznagar railway station was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred by the applicant. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that Exs.A-1 and A-2 amply support the plea of the applicant that he traveled by the train and fell down from the running train and received injuries and even according to RW.1 a male person fell down from the train at 01-00 p.m. at Rallapet railway cabin and the evidence of the applicant provides that he lost his ticket in the accident and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and the order passed by the Tribunal is to be set aside and the application is to be allowed. 9. On behalf of the respondent it is argued that there is no nexus between the documents marked and the accident and further the evidence adduced do not agree with the claim of the applicant about the time of the accident and the Tribunal properly considered the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The applicant as AW.1 deposed in accordance with his claim. Further, Ex.A-1 is not sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicant. Further, Ex.A-2 was issued 10 days after the incident by the Government Railway Police to the effect that the applicant fell down from the train and received injuries during his journey. Concerned Government Railway Police is not supposed to issue such certificate and only relevant public documents could be based to uphold the matter on hand. It appears that he issued such certificate without basing on any public document, it proves that it happened to be a false certificate. Further, RW.1 was not cross-examined whereas his affidavit filed shows that one male person fell down from the train at 01-00 p.m. Further, as per the relevant time table train No.324 passenger left Sirpurkagaznagar at 12-51 p.m. and it is admitted by AW.1 in his cross-examination that the distance between Rallapet and Sirpurkagaznagar Railway stations happened to be only 5 Kilometers, in such a case, the train would have reached Rallapet railway station at around 01-00 p.m. which does not tally with the time of fall claimed by the applicant. Further, no clear explanation was given with regards to non production of inquest report. It may be true that when such an incident took place, there was every possibility of loosing the journey ticket but there should be some supporting evidence to uphold the claim of the applicant which is not there. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis to say that the applicant traveled by the train. Further, there is no question of considering as to whether he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim any compensation. 10. Point No.3: The Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 10-03-2011. Dsh.