IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.65 OF 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..... Appellant AND Siresangandla Narsigha Rao @ Narasimha Rao ..... Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.65 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent against the order, dated 26.09.2007, in O.A.A. No.177 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in an alleged untoward incident was allowed by awarding a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 2. Heard. 3. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the applicant in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The applicant, aged about 65 years, an agriculturist and resident of Karivena Village near Kurnool District has filed this application claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident that happened near Kacheguda Railway Station on 03.05.2004 while travelling by Thungabadra Express from Kurnool to Secunderabad; that on 03.05.2004, the applicant and his cousin brother by name S. Narayan Rao purchased two second class journey tickets individually from Kurnool to Secunderabad and boarded Thungabadra Express at Kurnool which departed at about 3.00 p.m. and reached Kacheguda Railway Station at about 7.30 p.m. When the train left Kacheguda, his cousin brother told him to get ready to get down at Secunderabad Railway Station which would be coming shortly and went to the door followed by the applicant and opened the door of the compartment with his left hand while holding a green bag with his right hand and at that moment, the train wobbled violently due to which he lost balance, was unable to control himself and when he was about to fall, the applicant who was behind him tried to catch him from falling, but he also lost control and both of them fell down from the running train; that due to the fall from the train, his neck got injured, became stiff, unable to move his head and not able to do his normal agricultural work; and that the second class ticket purchased by him was lost in the course of the incident. 5. The respondent filed his written statement denying that the applicant fell down from Train No.7608 Tungabhadra Express on 03.05.2004 as he was noticed only at about 7.00 a.m. on 04.05.2004, whereas the said train passed the place of occurrence at Kacheguda Railway Station on 03.05.2004 at 7.30 p.m. and that if the applicant had fallen down from the train on 03.05.2004, he would not have gone unnoticed by the co- passengers of Train No.7608 Thungabhadra Express or by the drivers of other trains that passed on that track from 7.30 p.m. on 03.05.2004 till 7.00 a.m. on 04.05.2004; that as per the newspaper clipping produced by the applicant and marked as Ex.A-6, an unknown person, aged 70 years, and his brother, aged 60 years, were hit by a train while crossing the track and that the elder brother died in the incident, whereas the applicant herein was found lying injured; that it is not a case of injury due to accidental fall from train but due to hit by a train while crossing the track; and that it is not an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989; and that, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation, much less any interest on it and prayed to the Tribunal to dismiss the application. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the Applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7608 Thungabhadra Express traveling from Kurnool to Secunderabad on 3-05-04? 2. Whether the Applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-? 4. To what relief?” 7. During trial, A.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were got marked on behalf of the applicant. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no untoward incident happened on the date alleged by applicant and that the injured was not a bona fide passenger travelling in passenger train and that without there being any injuries on the body of applicant, granting of Rs.50,000/- is unsustainable and, therefore, he prays to set aside the award. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that he along with his cousin boarded Thungabhadra Express on the date of incident after purchasing a ticket and that during the course of journey, the Ticket Examiner verified the ticket and at the time of the incident, the respondent lost the ticket and that the evidence of A.W.4 would also go to show that the applicant purchased the ticket and that Ex.A-7-Discharge Summary of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A-8- Medical Report issued by Medinova Hospital, Nandyal, and Ex.A-9-Outpatient Ticket of Government Hospital would go to show that the injured sustained injuries for which the Tribunal rightly granted Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the applicant, there must be some evidence to show that the injured was travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket and that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident. 11. Coming to the incident in proper, the evidence of A.W.1 would go to show that he along with his cousin and the deceased went to Kurnool on 03.05.2004 and purchased tickets to go to Hyderabad and after purchasing the tickets, they boarded Thungabhadra Express. During the journey, the Ticket Examiner verified the tickets of the applicant and his cousin and returned the tickets to them after verification. According to him, he fell down from the running train along with his brother and lost consciousness. He simply stated that he lost his ticket. Admittedly, he kept the ticket in his pocket. In such case, there is no possibility for loosing the ticket. According to him, he lost his consciousness and two days after the incident, he regained consciousness. According to the injured, he along with A.W.2 boarded the train on 03.05.2004 and reached Kacheguda Railway Station at about 7.00 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. When the train was reaching Secunderabad Station, A.W.1 and his cousin tried to get down and as a result of jerks, they both fell down from the running train. If the contention of the applicant has to be accepted, then they would have been noticed by several persons because they found lying on the platform. A.W.1 has not sustained serious injuries so as to loose consciousness. For the first time, A.W.1 and the deceased were found lying on the platform on the early hours of 04.05.2004. Therefore, the case of A.W.1 appears to be totally improbable because for about 12 hours, they were unnoticed by anybody. Therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger travelling in passenger train in the absence of any evidence. 12. A.W.2 was examined to show that he went to the railway station on 03.05.2004 at 7.30 p.m., but his presence was not stated in inquest. Therefore, his evidence is not much helpful to show that the injured was a bona fide passenger. Coming to the A.W.3’s evidence, it would go to show that admittedly, he was not present at the time of incident. Coming to the evidence of A.W.4, who is closely related to the applicant, according to him, he saw the applicant purchasing a ticket and boarding the train. There is no need for him to go to Station. He is closely related to A.W.1. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 13. Even assuming for a moment that the applicant was a bona fide passenger, still he has not sustained any injuries at all. He filed Ex.A-7-Discharge Ticket of Osmania General Hospital, Nandyal, which would go to show that he was admitted in the hospital on 04.05.2004 and discharged on 05.05.2004. The applicant only complained of neck stiffness. He was referred to an Orthopaedic doctor and x-rays were taken for his neck, but the applicant has not produced any single document to show that he received some injuries. Mere complaining of neck stiffness cannot be said to be a sustaining of grievous injury by the applicant. Even Ex.A-7-Discharge Ticket does not show that the applicant sustained injury to the neck. Exs.A-8 and A-9 cannot be looked into for the simple reason that they were obtained two or three months after the incident in question. Even these two documents do not indicate that the applicant sustained an injury comes within the purview of “Schedule Injury” appended in Railway Claims Compensation Rules. Therefore, the applicant miserably failed to establish that he sustained a grievous injury in an untoward incident. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the Tribunal and erroneously granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the impugned order, dated 26.09.2007, in O.A.A. No.177 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 16th August, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.65 OF 2008 16th August, 2011. KL