IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.615 OF 2006 Date:15.09.2011 Between:- Voggu Vijaya Lakshmi ...Appellant And The Union of India. ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 02.03.2006, in O.A.A.No.147 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the applicant, and respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that on 11.06.2000 she boarded train No.471 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam Fast passenger in General compartment with a ticket bearing No.33583061 in order to go from Vijayawada to Samalkot. While she was getting inside the compartment, she had accidentally slipped and fell down between the platform and the track due to sudden jerk of the train and sustained severe injuries. Hence, claim application. 4. The respondent/ Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that on enquiry it was revealed that a lady passenger came between platform and the train and tried to catch the moving train No.471 on 11.06.2000 when it was already moving from platform at Vijayawada; that the incident had occurred on account of boarding the running train; that she was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.471 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam Fast passenger, travelling from Vijayawada to Samalkot on the night of 11.06.2000? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vijayawada Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries? 4. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident was not proved by filing any documentary proof. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that Ex.A.3- is the would certificate which would clearly go to show that the applicant sustained fracture of pelvis; that having found that she sustained fracture in an untoward incident and having found that she was travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/railways contended that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the applicant sustained fracture and that therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly dismissed the claim application and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the applicant, while boarding the running train, had accidentally slipped, fell down and sustained injuries. It is also not in dispute that an untoward incident had happened and that the applicant was travelling as a passenger with a valid ticket. These two aspects have not been denied or disputed by the railways. But, the only question is the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant in an untoward incident. Except the oral testimony of the applicant that she sustained fracture, she has not filed any documentary proof to show the nature of injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident. As per Ex.A.3- wound certificate, when the applicant was complaining of severe pain in pelvis, the Doctor clinically examined and found that there was fracture of pelvis and therefore, the appellant was referred for taking X-ray to show whether there was a fracture of pelvis or not. Thereafter, it is not known whether X-ray was taken or not. No X-ray was produced to show that the applicant sustained fracture of pelvis. There is absolutely no medical evidence to show that applicant sustained any one of the scheduled injuries or non scheduled injuries causing pain and suffering to her. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of medical evidence before the Tribunal requires that evidence of which the case in its nature is capable of being produced, should always be produced. When relevant evidence which is necessary for grant of damages is withheld, it is only fair to presume that the applicant withholding the evidence had some motive for not producing it, and that, if the evidence is offered, the truth would have come out. So, in the absence of any medical evidence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 15 2011 YVL