THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1145 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 07-02-2001 rendered in O.A.A. No.1264 of 1999 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of 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.2,40,000/- on account of amputation of his left leg following his involvement in train accident at Veerannapet railway station, dismissing the claim. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicant on 03-09-1998 with a view to visit his relatives at Gadwal, boarded train No.523 Kachiguda – Dronachalam passenger at Mahabubnagar holding a valid journey ticket bearing No.53183 from Mahabubnagar to Gadwal. While traveling, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train which was in motion at Veerannapet railway station at about 08-20 hours due to sudden jerks of the train, as a result of which, his left leg was cut below its knee and he also sustained a severe blunt injury on his head and severe multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, by the railway officials for necessary treatment and thereafter he was shifted to CDR Hospitals, Hyderabad, for better treatment. Further, the applicant being a bona fide passenger of the train is entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicant and further claiming that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train and as per the Guard of the train, it left Mahabubnagar station at 08-15 hours after due halt and when the train started and picked up speed one male person without any valid ticket jumped out from the train in a rash and negligent manner and came under the wheels resulting in severe injuries to him. The ticket quoted by the applicant was only planted one for the purpose of claiming compensation and ultimately pleaded to dismiss the application. 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 the train No.523 Kachiguda – Dronachalam passenger traveling from Mahaboobnagar to Gadwal? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Veerannapet railway station? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2,40,000/- as prayed? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 which are journey ticket, certificate issued by S.I. Railway police, Mahaboobnagar, Referral card issued by the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, Attested copy of discharge summary sheet issued by CDR Hospitals, Hyderabad, Medical Certificate issued by CDR Hospitasl, Out-patient card issued by CDR Hospitals, Hyderabad, Reference letter issued by Dr. M. Suresh from CDR Hospitals and Medical Certificate issued in respect of orthopedically Handicapped. On behalf of the respondent, Sri Abdul Khader, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked message issued by him to the Station Master, Maniamkonta, as Ex.R- 1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the second issue in favour of the applicant and the remaining issues against the applicant and dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that he failed to place any satisfactory evidence to the effect that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant placed satisfactory evidence to the effect that the he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the fact that his journey ticket was marked coupled with other relevant circumstances very much uphold his claim and it is pertinent to note that even according to the Railway authorities there was untoward incident but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. 9. The Tribunal mainly dismissed the application on the ground that RW.1, the Guard of the train clearly deposed that on the relevant date at 08-15 hours while the train was in motion one person tried to get down and came between the platform and the train and thereafter the train was stopped and the Guard approached the victim and found that his left leg was cut below his knee as the wheels of the train ran over his legs and after necessary first aid he (RW.1) ascertained the particulars of the victim and verified whether the applicant was holding any ticket as the same was to be noted in the Guard’s journal and found that he was not holding any valid ticket, whereas, in support of his claim Ex.R-1 was marked, Ex.A-2 certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Inspector of police, Mahaboobnagar, coupled with other documents marked speaks about the occurrence of the incident. There is no document with regards to the seizure of the ticket by the concerned police. Further, the ticket marked as Ex.A-1 is a general ticket, so it is impossible to establish basing upon the relevant ticket issue register that it was purchased by the applicant only. There should be supporting evidence to come to a conclusion that the applicant traveled by holding a valid ticket. 10. No doubt, by virtue Sections 54 and 55 of the Railways Act, it should be presumed that the applicant was holding a valid ticket while traveling in the train but that presumption is always rebuttable when sufficient evidence is placed. Here, the evidence of RW.1 is very important, there is no basis to say that having influenced by the railway authorities he gave false evidence before the Court. Even though he is a railway employee he must be a neutral person. On the other hand, his evidence is quite natural and not rebutted. Accordingly his evidence is accepted. Therefore it proves that immediately after the accident he rushed to the applicant and made necessary enquiries and found that he was not holding valid ticket. This evidence amply proves that the ticket was planted taking necessary measures later. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 25-03-2011. Dsh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.25-03-2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1145 OF 2008 Between: M. Subash. - - - Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: