THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.195 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent was about to board Train No.471 – Vijayawada – Rayagada passenger in the night of 17-02-2004. On account of heavy rush, he was standing at the door, and when the train started, he fell down between the platform and train. His right hand was cut and separated at the shoulder joint, by the wheels of the train. He filed O.A.A.No.81 of 2004 before the Secunderabad Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation. The application was opposed by the appellant, by raising several pleas, including the one, that the respondent is not a bona fide passenger. Through its order dated 26- 11-2009, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-, as compensation. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the respondent. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: 1) Whether the application is maintainable? 2) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.471 Vijayawada – Rayagada passenger travelling from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry on 17-02-2004 ? 3) Whether the applicant sustained injuries due to the result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train and entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- ? The respondent deposed as AW-1, and he filed Exs.A-1 to A-6, which depicted the nature of accident and the extent of disability. On behalf of the appellant, RW-1 was examined, and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were filed. Much of the controversy before the Tribunal centered around the question, as to whether the respondent was a bona fide passenger. The appellant mainly pleaded that no ticket was recovered from the respondent, and in that view of the matter, he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. The possession of a valid train ticket by an injured, or existence of the same on the body of a deceased, in an untoward incident, leading to an accident, involving a train; is certainly an important factor. Though existence or availability of ticket may be provided a clinching proof of such question, the mere non-existence of the same cannot lead to an invariable inference, that the injured or deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In the instant case, the petitioner boarded the train at Vijayawada, one of the busiest junctions. The train was about to leave the platform, and he came under the wheels of the train. The fact that there was heavy rush in the train and he had to be at the door itself, by the time the train started, was not in dispute. The respondent categorically stated that he purchased a ticket. The possibility of the ticket, being lost in such ghastly accident, in which his right hand got separated; cannot be ruled out. Further, no one would be busy in searching for the ticket, much less the respondent. The immediate attention would be, to shift him to a hospital. Even otherwise, instances are not lacking, where, an individual rushes to the station and straightaway gets into the train, if the time is not adequate for him to purchase the ticket, before the train leaves. In such cases, the fare is paid to, or collected by the T.T.E. The Tribunal has referred to certain decided cases, in this regard, and held that the respondent was a bona fide passenger. The fact that the accident occurred in the railway station itself, and that the respondent was shifted by the railway officials to a Government Hospital, and that the treatment was accorded to him under their supervision, would draw curtain of any suspicion, that existed in this regard. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. The C.M.A is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-07-2010. KO