HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 313 OF 2008 DATED 22ND NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway,Secunderabad. …….Appellant and Naram Thathabbai and anr. …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 313 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is preferred by the South Central Railway assailing the award dated 28.01.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad in OAA.No. 55 of 2001, whereunder and whereby, the claim application ﬁled the respondents/applicants cam to be allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The respondents/applicants ﬁled a claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, claiming compensation on account of death of their son, Naram Sathish Kumar @ Sathish in an untoward incident accidentally falling from train No. 7007-Godavari Express on 27.4.2000. It was stated in the claim application that the deceased-Naram Sathish Kumar while boarding Train No. 7007-Godavari Express at Anakapalli Railway Station to go to Samalkot and when the said train started with a jerk, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down, as a result of which, he suﬀered amputation of his both legs and succumbed to injuries on the spot. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, allowed the claim application and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Railway submitted that the alleged incident had occurred due to the gross negligence of the deceased, which is nothing but causing self inﬂicting injuries and the same is thereof not covered under the ‘untoward incident’ and therefore not entitled to receive compensation under Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act. He further submitted that no evidence was adduced to establish that the death of the deceased was covered by ‘untoward incident’. He contended that if at all the alleged incident had occurred on the platform, no co-passengers in the train had pulled the chain to stop thetrain or the passengers on the platform had made complaint in this regard to the Station Master or there was any complaint from the Guard on duty of the train as to the so called incident. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/applicants supported the award of the Tribunal. He submitted that the appellant-Railway did not adduce any rebuttal evidence at any stage of the issues to disprove the claim of the applicants and as such, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal. He sought for dismissal of the appeal. Perused the case file. A careful perusal of the evidence of Aws.1 to 3 would show that the deceased purchased the ticket to go Samarlkot and boarded the Godavari Express at Anakapalli Railway Station. However, due to over crowd, he could not enter inside of the compartment and was standing at the entrance door of the compartment. While so, when the train moved with a jerk, the deceased slipped and fell down on the platform as a result of which both of his legs were amputated and succumbed to injuries on the spot. On a message to the police by the Station Superintendent stating that a male person aged about 35 years was found by the side of the track on platform No.1 with legs cut, the police visited the spot and issued Ex.A.3-FIR. In Ex.A.4-Inquest report, it was opined that there was no doubt about the death of the deceased which was caused due to accidental fall from train No.7007- Godavari Express at Anakapalli at 1805 hours on 27.4.2000. The evidence on record would further shows that by the time of station master and railway police came to the spot, the deceased found dead and Ex.A.1 death report dated 31.5.2000 was issued by the Government Railway Police, Tune, certifying that the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the train. As such, it was thus proved that the deceased was a bona ﬁde passenger and death of the deceased was due to untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Railway submitted that the death of the deceased was due to his own gross negligence and the same is nothing but inﬂicting self injury is therefore untenable. It may be noticed here that except denying the claim of the applicants, the appellant-Railways, for the reasons best known to it, did not choose to adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal to prove their case that the deceased tried to board the train from oﬀ side when it started and gained full speed and that the accident was due to the negligence and carelessness act of the deceased in boarding a moving train for which it was not liable to pay compensation to the applicants on the premise that it was not a case of death due to accidental fall in an untoward incident. In the absence of any evidence to support their plea, the same cannot be countenanced. It is the contention of the learned standing counsel that had the incident occurred on the platform on the railway station, the co- passengers in the train would have pulled the chain to stop the train; or usually the passengers on the platform would have brought the same to the notice of the Station Master; or at least the Guard on duty in the train would have noticed and complained the same to the Railway authorities but that did not happen so in this case. However, the fact remains that no evidence in that regard was adduced by the Railways before the Tribunal. Further, it is common knowledge that normally it is not known as to what has happened on the platform to the co-passengers travelling in the train which had started and gained its usual speed as they are in a mood to settle down in their seats by safeguarding their luggage in the proper place. It is also not correct to say that the so-called accident was not brought to the notice of the Station Master by the passengers on the platform as the evidence of A.W.3, who is the brother of the deceased and was standing on the platform, reveals that immediately after the incident, he rushed to the Station Master for medical aid to his brother and only thereafter, the Station Master and the Railway Police came to the spot. The inaction and failure on the part of the Guard on duty in the train not bring the so-called accident to the notice of the concerned Railway authorities is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the applicants. On the other hand, the evidence of A.W.3, which remained unrebutted, dispels the said contention of the learned standing counsel. The Tribunal, considering all these aspects including the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective, rightly allowed the application ﬁled by the appellants and granted compensation to the applicants by its Award dated 29.01.2008. I do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or irregularity in the Award passed by the Tribunal and the same does not warrant interference by this Court in this appeal. In the result, I do not see any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd December, 2011. Msnro