THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.77 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.A.A.No.342 of 2005 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. She pleaded that on 23.12.2004, she came to Samalkot Railway Station along with her husband and brother-in-law and purchased a ticket to travel to Visakhapatnam. She pleaded that after the train No.8564 reached the station, she attempted to board the train but due to rush, she could not immediately get into it. According to the respondent, while she was about to get into the train, it started with a sudden jerk and thereby, she fell down between the platform and the wheels. The result is that her right leg was amputated above the knee level and left leg below the knee level. The appellant filed a written statement opposing the claim. They did not dispute the fact that the petitioner purchased a ticket and sustained injuries in the process of boarding the train. Their plea was that the respondent herself is responsible for the accident, since she made an attempt to board a moving train. Through its order, dated 13.11.2009, the Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with interest.. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the record clearly discloses that the accident occurred on account of the attempt made by the respondent to enter a moving train and it is a case of self-inflicted injury. He submits that there was no basis for the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion that the respondent sustained injuries on account of accidental fall. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant did not dispute the occurrence of the accident and that the respondent is a bona fide passenger. He further submits that the very fact that the accident occurred right in the station discloses that the fell occurred on account of the sudden jerk. The fact that the respondent fell from train and sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of legs at different parts was not disputed. The plea raised by the appellant was that the respondent contributed to the accident in its entirety. Before the Tribunal, the respondent deposed as A.W.1 and she filed Exs.A.1 to A.4, which includes wound certificate. On behalf of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were filed. It is no doubt true that if a railway untoward incident occurs on account of the negligence on the part of the passenger, the Railways cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, the fact that the respondent is a bona fide passenger is not disputed. Further, it is a matter of record that she fell from train leading to grievous injuries. Ex.A.4 discloses the nature of injuries received by the respondent. No passenger, that too a woman passenger, would derive pleasure in entering a moving train. The manner, in which a passenger can gain entry into the train, would depend upon the extent of rush in a particular station. The train would stop only for a very brief time and if the number of passengers is more, naturally there would be hectic attempt on the part of every passenger to get into the train, before it leaves the platform. In the process, some of them may have to make attempt to get into the train even after the train starts. It is a larger issue as to whether responsibility exists on the part of the Railways to ensure that every passenger gets into the train before it leaves or that persons are prevented from being nearer to the train, when the train is about to start. The respondent clearly stated the circumstances, under which she sustained injuries and nothing was elicited from her to discredit the deposition. The Tribunal has taken correct view of fact and law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15.06.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.77 of 2010 Date: 15.06.2011 JSU