HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1039 OF 2006 . DATED 23rd December, 2011 BETWEEN T.V.Subba Rao …Appellant And The Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1039 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed an application in OAA.No. 119 of 1999 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, claiming compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from Train No. 427 : Guntakal—Guntur passenger. It was alleged that on 10.8.1998 he purchased four journey tickets for himself and his family members to go to Guntur from Donakonda and boarded Train No. 427 at Donakonda Railway Station and that after the train started leaving Donakonda Railway platform, he sustained injuries having accidentally slipped and fallen down from the said running train due to jerks. It was further stated that in the said accident, there was amputation of his right leg below knee, and lacerated wound on the body. That said claim application was opposed by the respondent-Railway stating that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that there was no information as to the untoward incident from the said train. The Tribunal on due consideration of the evidence on record, rejected the claim application of the appellant. Hence, this appeal. Heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erroneously placed entire reliance on the depositions of RW.1 in arriving at the conclusion. He submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record in the proper perspective and failed to consider the case of the appellant that he was a bona fide passenger having purchased valid journey ticket for himself and his family members. Perused the case file. A careful perusal of the material on record would reveal that the appellant has not produced the alleged journey ticket to prove that he was a bona fide passenger. Though the appellant had produced Ex.A.1, certificate issued by the Railway Police Station, Donakonda and his assertion that he had kept the tickets with his wife for safety purpose, to show that he was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal did not believe the same. Albeit he alleged in the claim application that he travelled along with his family members in the subject train on the said fateful day, he did not choose to examine any one of them. Even the appellant failed to furnish the details of at least one ticket out of four tickets alleged to have been purchased by him to prove that he was a bona fide passenger. There was no direct witness to the said alleged accidental fall. The alleged documents produced by the appellant failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger beyond preponderance of probability. Further, during the examination of R.W.1, he produced the case dairy wherein there was no mention as to the purchase of journey ticket by the appellant. Thus the initial burden that lies on the appellant, remained un-discharged to establish that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. Further, another draw back which came to light during the trail was that no incident of accidental fall from the Train No. 427 took place on the relevant day. The deposition of RW.1 coupled with Ex.R.1 reveal that an incident of accidental fall was reported to have occurred by Train No. 515 and not Train No. 427. To this aspect also, the appellant did not choose to rebut the same. In as much as the appellant failed to prove that he was a bona fide passenger, that the untoward incident took place while travelling in Train No. 427 and that the alleged injuries sustained by him were due to the alleged incident of accidental fall from Train No.427, the Tribunal considered these aspects in the proper perspective and rejected rightly the claim application filed by the appellant. Having heard the learned Counsel and gone through the material on record, I do not find any merit in the appeal so as to arrive at a different conclusion than what was arrived at by the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23rd December, 2011. Msnro