IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.510 of 2006 Between: Locharla Chandram ..... APPELLANT And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.510 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 09.11.2005 in O.A.A.No.61 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants herein claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The application is filed by one Locharla Chandram under Sec.16 of Railway Tribunal Act r/w.Sec.124A & 125 of Railways Act for a compensation of Rs.1.2 lakh for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accident fall from Train No.7239 Visakhapatnam- Simhadri Express. He has stated that on 20.11.1998 while traveling with journey ticket by Train No.7239 Visakhapatnam-Simhadri Express in second class general compartment, he slipped accidentally and fell down from the said running train between Brahmanagudem and Nidadavolu Railway stations at KM No.558/34-36 in which he sustained fracture of his right leg and also other multiple injuries. He has declared that the ticket was lost at the time of accident. 4. The respondent-railways have denied the case of the applicant and has stated that the applicant has not produced any documents to prove that he is a bona fide passenger of the said train on the alleged day and also that he was involved in an untoward incident since as per the records, no untoward incident has been reported by the said train. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Is it proved by the petitioner that he was traveling in Train No.7239 on 20.11.1998, as a passenger? 2. It is proved that he sustained injuries while traveling in an untoward incident? 3. Is it proved by the respondent that the incident attracts Sec.124(a), (b) & (c) of Railways Act, 1989? 4. What are the injuries establishes? 5. What amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, AW 1 was examined and no document was marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the evidence of AW 1 is very clear that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident and therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Railways contended that the applicant has failed to establish that there was an untoward incident happened and in that incident he sustained injuries, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the applicant and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the applicant is entitled for compensation, unless it is established by the railways administration that the case of the applicant falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Sec.124-A of the Act. 10. In so far as untoward incident is concerned, though the evidence of AW 1 goes to show that he purchased a ticket for traveling in train No.7239 Visakhapatnam-Simhadri Express, no document is placed to show that he involved in an untoward incident and sustained fracture to his right leg. He stated that he lost his ticket at the time of incident. Except his oral assertion, no other document is filed to show that he sustained fracture in the untoward incident. He has also not filed any document to show that the police registered a case with regard to that incident, said to have occurred on 20.11.1998. Similarly, he has not produced any document to show that he has taken treatment in any hospital for his fracture and other multiple injuries. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the applicant sustained fracture and injuries as claimed by him in an untoward incident on 20.11.1998. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 08.09.2011 Dsr