HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.330 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011 Between: Gollapalli Chandra Sekhar @ Chandu … Appellant. And: The Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.330 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the order of dismissal dated 07-11-2005 passed in O.A.A.No.240 of 1998 filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A of Railway Act seeking to award compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- to the appellant. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application. 4. The claim of the applicant is that he travelled by train No.7047 Gauthami Express on 08-07-1998 from Kakinada to Rajahmundry and in between Kakinada and Samalkot Railway Stations, he fell down from the train due to jerks of the train and received injuries including fracture of his lower jaw and loss of his eight teeth which the respondent totally denied. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7047 travelling from Kakinada to Rajahmundry on 8-7-98? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an accidental fall from the train between Kakinada and Samalkot? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- as claimed? 4. To what relief? 6. The applicant got himself examined AW1and got marked as Ex.A.1-letter issued by the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital dated 15-07-2003 about his treatment. 7. On the basis of material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground of not adducing satisfactory evidence. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant purchased a ticket bearing No.40059 to go to Rajahmundry from Kakinada that the applicant received injuries and took treatment in the Government Hospital, Kakinda that I.A.No.442 of 2005 was filed to summon the Government Railway Police to send relevant GD entry and the ticket said to be collected by them after the applicant was taken to the Government Hospital, Kakinada but it was dismissed on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the Interlocutory Application should have been filed within a reasonable time, but it was not filed accordingly, that hence, the tribunal dismissed the application and that there is no need to take necessary steps in that behalf. 10. In order to dispose of the appeal, the following points are to be examined. 1. Whether the applicant placed satisfactory evidence to the effect that he travelled in the train as bonafide passenger? 2. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion? 3. Whether its order is sustainable or not? 4. Whether an opportunity is to be given to the applicant to adduce necessary evidence further for the purpose of upholding his claim? 11. POINTS 1 AND 2: Having gone through the record, I am clearly of the view that absolutely, there is no good documentary evidence to uphold the claim of the applicant and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 12. POINTS 3 AND 4: Coming to the question of giving opportunity to the applicant to take further steps by way of adducing necessary further evidence and to meet the ends of justice, it is pertinent note here that in fact the applicant filed the said I.A before the Tribunal for the purpose of calling necessary records from the Government Railway Police with regard to his admission in the hospital and seizure of his ticket whereas, it was dismissed on the ground that it was a belated one. Such a plea can be taken at any stage and dismissing it on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage may not serve the purpose of justice. Hence, it is necessary to see that the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for giving opportunity to the applicant to take necessary steps to get the said records and adduce fresh evidence correspondingly for the purpose of upholding his claim. 13. In the result, the appeal is disposed of subject to the observation made above and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration accordingly with a direction that the Tribunal should dispose the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. ____________________________________ Justice G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 08.02.2011 Dvs/Sp HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.330 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011