IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.21-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.624 OF 2006 Between: Boga Rambabu. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.624 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 16-02-2006 passed in O.A.A. No.51 of 2000 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries by the appellant in a train accident at Nidadavolu railway station, dismissing the claim made therein. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.51 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Application. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicant on 28-12-1999 while returning to Nidadavolu from Eluru by passenger train No.431 Vijayawada – Kakinada passenger and when the train stopped at Nidadavolu railway station, he was hit by its door and thrown out from the compartment and went under the wheels which resulted in injuries for which he was taken to private hospital by the railway staff and police. Further, the applicant being a bona fide passenger of the train is entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the incident of fall of the applicant from the train on the relevant date and further claiming that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train whereas there was no untoward incident and ultimately pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Teribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train No.431 Vijayawada – Kakinada passenger travelling from Eluru to Nidadavolu on 28-12-1999? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Nidadavolu railway station? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as prayed? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got examined himself as AW.1 and also got examined licensed porter of Nidadavolu railway station as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. Further, on behalf of the respondent RWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim made by the applicant in which it is observed that the applicant was not examined by any Government doctor and Exs.A- 1 to A-3 which are police certificate issued by G.R.P. to the effect that the applicant fell down from the train accidentally and received injuries, a certificate to the effect that he was treated in a private hospital and medical bills produced by the applicant cannot be considered without examining concerned doctor and also concerned other officials with reference to relevant registers and the claim of the applicant is not established and ultimately dismissed the claim, following which the present appeal has been preferred. 8. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there is a copy of G.D. entry which is relevant here to the effect that the applicant fell down from the train and received injuries which in fact strengthens the claim of the applicant and further as per the medical certificate the applicant received injuries and there is ample evidence to uphold the claim of the applicant but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that without examining concerned private doctor with reference to the relevant documents and also without examining the concerned G.R.P. officials the claim of the applicant can not be upheld in any way and the Tribunal properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 9. Ultimately both the counsel represented that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to give opportunity to the applicant to adduce necessary medical and other documentary evidence and then give an opportunity to the respondent to adduce necessary rebuttal evidence. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to examine the doctor who according to the applicant treated the applicant with reference to the injuries received by him in the accident and it is also necessary to examine the concerned G.R.P. officials to speak about the relevant information and registration of the case and consequently steps taken by him. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain those particulars. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to examine the private doctor who according to the applicant treated the applicant with reference to the injuries said to be received by him in the accident and then to examine the concerned G.R.P. officials to speak about the receiving necessary information and the registration of the case and the steps taken by him consequently and then to give an opportunity to the respondent to adduce necessary evidence to rebut the evidence adduced. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date.21-03-2011. Dsh.