HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.573 of 2007 Date: February 11, 2011 Between: 1. K. Tarakaramam & 3 others … Appellants/Claimants And The Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Respondent/Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.573 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against order of dismissal dated 26.4.2007 passed in O.A.A. No.239 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act to grant compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh by virtue of injuries said to be sustained by the first appellant/first applicant by falling from Train No.419 Guntur – Macherla passenger. 2. The Appellants 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the first appellant K. Tarakaramam who died during the pendency of the O.A.A. Whereas the appellants are the applicants the respondent is the respondent in the O.A.A. They will be referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. 3. The case of the applicants is as follows: The first applicant was working as an Attender in Primary Health Centre, Mandapadu, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District. On 03.7.2001 the first applicant boarded Train No.419 Guntur – Macherla passenger for the purpose of going to Sattenapally from Guntur. While he was standing near one of the doors of one of the compartments of the train he slipped and fell down accidentally near Gudipudi Railway Station because of heavy rush of passengers in the compartment and jerks of the train and consequently his left hand was cut and separated and his left foot was severely crushed by the wheels of the train. One halt agent of Gudipudi Railway Station came to know about it through some villagers and informed about it to the Station Master, Sattenapally Railway Station and then the injured was shifted by Train No.7054 express to Guntur Railway Station and later he was admitted in the Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital, Kothapet, Guntur for necessary treatment and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, this application. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants and further contending that no ticket was produced before the Court and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and therefore the application should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train No.419 Guntur-Macherla passenger travelling from Guntur to Sattenapalli on 03.7.2001? (2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Gudipudi Railway Station as alleged? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? (4) To what relief? As the 1st applicant died the remaining applicants were added as his L.Rs and then the following issues were framed additionally: (5) Whether the applicants 2 to 4 are the dependents of the deceased applicant No.1 K. Tarakaramam? (6) Whether applicant No.1 died only due to the injuries sustained by him in the train accident? 6. For the applicants, the second of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. For the respondent, the Guard of the train was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds that there was no F.I.R., no ticket was produced and no eyewitness to the incident was examined and so on. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that R.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination about the fall of the first applicant from the train and the Tribunal rejected the claim only in view of non-production of the ticket, but the ticket was lost because of the incident and two years later the deceased died whereas no compensation is claimed with regards to his death and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that whereas the incident said to have taken place on 03.7.2001, the matter was reported to the Railway Authorities only on 08.3.2001 and non-production of the ticket is not explained and the Tribunal considered the matter properly and there was no reason to interfere with its order. 10. R.W.1, the Guard of Train No.7054 deposed that he stopped the same train at Gudipudi Railway Station and picked up the injured person, who was in unconscious state, and then he searched the pockets of the injured and found that there was no ticket available with him or around the scene and the injured was taken by the same train (Train No.7054) and was handed over to the Station Superintendent, Guntur for further course of action and hence it proves that the injured was without ticket and he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. 11. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of R.W.1 noted above. His evidence amply proves that without delay he traced the injured person and took him by the Train No.7054 and searched the pockets of the injured and also surrounding area, but found no ticket. No claim is made to the effect that he kept his bag elsewhere or his belongings were lost or as he received such serious injuries, he fell unconscious and could not know what happened to them. Therefore, it is to be held that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. 12. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and ultimately the appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: February 11, 2011. BSB