HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against an order and decree dated 12/03/1993 made in O.A.A.No.222 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as a result of railway accident was allowed in part, holding that the respondent/applicant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- from the railways. It is the case of the respondent/applicant that on 22/07/2002 he came to Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased journey ticket from Vijayawada to Chirala and boarded train No.474 passenger into the general compartment. As the train was heavily crowded, the applicant was sitting near the door way inside the train. When the train was passing Epurupalem railway station at about 6 PM, due to jerks of the train, applicant had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train and sustained grievous injuries, and the train ran over his left hand. He also sustained grievous injuries to his left leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Chirala Government Hospital for treatment, from where he was referred to Government Hospital, Guntur, where his left hand was amputated up to the shoulder joint. The appellant/respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made and it was contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further, the injury sustained by him was on account of his own negligence and carelessness and amounted to self-inflicted injury and the incident is not covered under the definition “untoward incident” as defined under Section 124 (c) of the Railways Act. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 2. Whether the applicant had sustained injuries due to untoward incident as defined under Section123 (c) of the Ac? 3. Relief and costs? On behalf of the applicant, Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked whereas on behalf of the respondent Ex.R-1 was marked. After considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant/A.W.1 was not cross-examined by the respondent, thus, his affidavit remained unchallenged. Therefore, it must be held that the applicant was a bona fide passenger. Ex.A-1 is the message given by the Station Superintendent to the police asking them to pick up one injured person who was lying near Epurupalem halt to hand over to GRP/Chirala for medical treatment and Ex.A-2 shows that the injured was rushed to the Area Hospital, Chirala, by the police. Ex.A-3 is the statement of the injured given to the police and in his statement he clearly stated that as the train was heavily crowded and as the train reached Epurupalem Railway station at about 6 PM, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the compartment and train ran over his left shoulder which was cut off and amputated. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Act and in view of the same and after examining the nature of injuries suffered by the applicant, the Tribunal held that on account of injury sustained by the applicant, his left hand was amputated from the shoulder joint and this injury falls under item No.1 of Part III of Schedule of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, for which the applicant is entitled to get Rs.3,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court either on fact or on law. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 01st July, 2010 SKM