HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.530 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.61 of 2000 dated 14.02.2006 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, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the application here afterwards. The application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, r/w Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, by the applicant, for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from a train. The claim of the applicant before the Tribunal was that on 14.12.1999, he was travelling from Bonakalu to Cheruvumadhavaram by train No. 337 Dornakal- Vijayawada Passenger in General Compartment and that while he was getting down from the train at Cheruvumadhavaram Railway Station, due to sudden jerks and movement of the train, he slipped and fell down under the train and the train ran over him, resulting in cutting of both of his legs. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicant and further claiming that no untoward incident took place on the relevant date and that as per the Telugu version of the statement given by the applicant, when the injured applicant was about to get down, the train already started and during that period he tried to alight from the train and therefore the incident does not come under the purview of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It was further stated that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger and the injury may be self-inflicted. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial on the basis of the material available. 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 337 Dornakal- Vijayawada Passenger traveling from Bonakalu to Cheruvumadhavaram on 14-12-99? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Cheruvumadhavaram as alleged? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3, which happened to be the original train ticket, accident memo addressed to the Government Reserve Police, Vijayawada issued by the Station Superintendent, Thiruvu Madhavaram dated 14.12.1999 in which the time of accident was given as 8.30 A.M., a letter addressed to the RPS1/GRP-B2A issued by the Station Superintendent SCR-VJA to the effect that the applicant received the injuries in the accident, whereas information had been given at 9.05 A.M. noting the corresponding ticket number and the injuries received. On behalf of the respondent-Railway, R.W.1 was examined Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. Having examined the material on record, it is observed by the Tribunal that the applicant failed to examine any of his co-passenger in the train taking necessary measures with regard to the journey and the journey ticket filed do not bear relevant date of issue and stamp and, therefore, it is doubtful that the applicant happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train, holding valid ticket and further no medical record is filed to establish the injuries said to have been received by the applicant. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3 are sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicant and it is also contended by her that even though necessary medical record was there, the same was not marked as exhibits in evidence before the Tribunal and hence there was no opportunity for the Tribunal to examine the injuries received by the applicant in the accident and, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to get those records marked as exhibits and to dispose of the matter on merits. It is also contended that Ex.A.1 clearly proves that the deceased was holding valid ticket and if there is any doubt about the ticket, on that ground also the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for proper examination of the ticket. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there is no basis to say that Ex.A.1 ticket is a genuine ticket because there is no seal affixed on the same and for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the tickets, the matter may be remanded to the trial Court for taking necessary measures, and it is also contended that there is relevant medical record to uphold the claim of the applicant about the injuries received by him, and an opportunity is to be given to the applicant to adduce evidence in that context and on that ground also, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for necessary consideration. The point for determination is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is proper or not? POINT NO.1: If there is no seal affixed on Ex.A.1 ticket, the genuineness of the ticket can be asserted on the basis of relevant ticket issue register. Further, when the learned counsel for the applicant claims availability of medical record with regard to the injuries said to have been sustained by the applicant in the accident an opportunity is to be given to the applicant to adduce necessary evidence. Therefore, in the circumstances enumerated, it is necessary that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal, for providing necessary opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence as observed above and to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law. In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, to give opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence to establish the genuineness of the ticket with reference to relevant registers and also to establish the question of injuries received by the applicant with reference to relevant medical records. Further, as the applicant is mainly responsible for not adducing necessary medical evidence at the outset, as a result of which much delay has been caused and the other party also has to incur necessary expenditure, the applicant is penalized by denying him payment of necessary interest on the amount, if any, that may be awarded by the Tribunal ultimately in the claim application, from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal till this day. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J 14th March, 2011 PNV