IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.10 of 2010 Date: 03.08.2011 Between: The Union of India, rep. By the General Manager, Secunderabad. .....Appellant. AND Manukonda Rajendra Prasad. ....Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.10 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the award dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed by the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.80,000/-. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 23/24.4.2002, the applicant came to Rajahmundry railway station in the night and purchased a ticket from Rajahmundry to Howrah to travel by 2704 Falaknuma Express and when the train reached Rajahmundry railway station, he boarded the general compartment and due to heavy rush, he was standing at the door of the compartment and as the train started with a jerk, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in-between the train and the platform and sustained fracture to his left leg and he was admitted in Rajahmundry General Hospital for treatment and thereby he incurred some expenses. Hence, he filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation. 4. The respondent railway administration filed its written statement while denying the averments made in the application stated that there is no cause of action for the applicant to file the application as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c )(2) or Section124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act) and that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger of train No.2704 and the injuries sustained by him were self-inflicted injuries caused due to his own criminal act and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and entitled to claim Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked and Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked through the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the application granting a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till its realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-Railways is that due to criminal act on the part of the injured, the accident took place and there is no fault on the part of the Railway Administration and that the injured was not a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, he prays to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (applicant) contended that while getting down from the train, the injured accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in between the train and the platform and sustained fracture to his left leg and that he was a bonafide passenger as he was travelling on the ticket purchased by him, that the amount covered under the ticket has been refunded to him and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Section 124-A of the Act covers the nature of no fault liability. Therefore, unless, the case falls under any of the exceptions to the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, it cannot be said that the injured is not a bonafide passenger of train No.2704. More over, it is not the case whether the appellant’s case falls under any one of the exceptions to Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. When the Railway Administration takes a plea that because of the criminal act on the part of the injured, he sustained injury, it is for the railway administration to adduce necessary evidence on that aspect. But, no evidence was adduced. On the other hand, respondent No.1 who is the Station Master has categorically stated that while boarding the train, the injured accidentally slipped and fell down and sustained fractures. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the injured fell down from the train accidentally while he was boarding the train and it is an untoward incident. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court. More over, as per Rule 3 Schedule Part III(33) of Railway Accidents & Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the injured is entitled for compensation, if any thing happens while boarding the train. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date:03.08.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.10 of 2010 Date: 03.08.2011 Gk.