IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.04-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.758 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Kalli Sitamma. --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.758 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 05-07-2007, passed in O.A.A. No.349 of 2002, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987, Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on amputation of left leg of the applicant in a railway accident, partly allowing it. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.349 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts set out in the application in brief are as follows : On 24-10-2002 while the applicant was travelling in general compartment of train No.436 Visakhapatnam – Rajahmundry passenger from Visakhapatnam to Tuni with an ordinary ticket bearing No.05680130, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Regupalem railway station as a result of which, her left leg was cut and immediately she was rescued by some Railway authorities of Regulpalem railway station who sent her to the Government Hospital, Tuni, for first aid and thereafter shifted her to the Government Hospital, Kakinada. Hence, the applicant being a bona fide passenger of the train, filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the pleas of the applicant and further claiming that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train as no ticket was found in her possession and she produced the journey ticket along with her application by planting the same for getting compensation and in fact, she fell down from the train while trying to get down from the train in motion and as such it is not an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act and further she also failed to produce any medical report certifying the injuries sustained by her and as such the petition should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train and entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation? 3) To what Relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, her son namely Kalla Satynarayana was examined as AW.1 and one Kalla Raju was examined as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 which are the original ticket and copy of a message issued by the Deputy Station Superintendent, Tuni. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization and further enabling the applicant to withdraw the amount with a further direction that the remaining amount should be kept in fixed deposit in State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad, for a period of three years, subject to deposit of the amount by the respondent. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there is no dispute about the findings under issue No.1 but under the second issue without producing any medical record and even without examining the applicant physically and just observing AW.1 the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- was awarded to the applicant which therefore is not tenable and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly while passing the award in favour of the applicant? 2. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 10. Point : It is observed in para 8 page 7 of the order that the railways have taken a defense that the applicant has not produced any medical record regarding any injuries sustained by her accidentally but however during the further cross examination of AW.1, the applicant was found having amputation of her left leg below knee portion which is a scheduled injury which comes within the purview of Item No.22 of Part III of the schedule under Rule 3 (1) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1997 and hence, she is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and accordingly disposed of the matter directing the respondent railways to deposit the amount as stated above. 11. The Tribunal could award any compensation only basing upon the relevant evidence adduced and not beyond that. The observation of the trial court that the applicant was found with amputation of her left leg below her knee portion at the time of cross-examination of AW.1 and hence the application was allowed is quite strange. Unless necessary medical evidence was adduced it was difficult to say under what circumstances she got the amputation of her left leg below knee portion. Therefore, the findings given by the Tribunal under the second and third issues are not tenable and they are liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to give opportunity to the applicant to adduce necessary medical evidence to establish what injuries she received in the accident for the purpose of paying necessary compensation. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. It is represented that after awarding the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- an amount of Rs.80,000/- was deposited and the same was withdrawn by the applicant as per the orders of this Court dated 06-10-2007. So the same is to be considered subject to the disposal of the application by the Tribunal afresh. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 04-03-2011. Dsh.