THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A.No.917 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2006 passed in O.A.A.No.65 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the applicant seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by him, was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 21.03.2001 the applicant boarded the train No.8563 (Prashanti Express) at Nandayl Railway Station to go to Vijayawada. As the train was over crowded, the applicant stood by the side of the door. When the train reached Dronachalam some more passengers entered the compartment. After the train left Dronachalam and moved to some distance, on account of the jerks, the applicant lost his balance and fell down from the running train in between Malliyala and Linganeni Dodi Railway Stations as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries. After some time the gang man identified the applicant and shifted him to Railway Station and joined him in the Government Hospital there and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool where his left leg was amputated. Hence, the applicant filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the railways. 3 The respondent (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that as per the enquiries from Guard to train No.8563 express there was no untoward incident to the train right from Nandayal to Guntakal Railway Station and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train in question? ii. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iii. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the applicant. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 & 2 but no document was marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition holding that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger by train No.8563 and the journey ticket is proved to have not been issued on the date of accident. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant/ applicant is entitled to compensation? 8 The learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant has not been discussed, and the Tribunal, after referring to the pleadings in O.A.No.71 of 2002, had dismissed the claim of the applicant, the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the evidence adduced by the applicant in this case. 9 On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the respondent/Railways contended that since the O.A.No.71 of 2002 was filed in respect of the very same incident and that the applicant has mentioned the ticket number which found to be not issued on the date of accident, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application filed by the applicant and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Act two requirements are to be satisfied viz., the death or bodily injury had occurred in an untoward incident and that the deceased/injured was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 11 Sustaining of injuries by the applicant is not in dispute. He had fallen from the train due to the jerks of the compartment, as a result of which, his left leg was crushed and in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool his left leg was amputated. Even R.W.1 the Deputy Station Superintendent of Drohachalam has categorically stated that the Guard of the train informed him that a male injured person was lying in between Dhone and Malliyala Stations. Then they went there and shifted the injured to the Government Railway Police, Dhone for treatment. R.W.2 is the Booking Supervisor. He stated that the ticket Nos.054432 to 05449 (6 in Number) were issued on 21.3.2001 from Nandyal to Vijayawada for train No.8563 and similarly ticket Nos.054560 to 054646 (6 in Number) were issued on 06.04.2001 for train No.8563 express. On the basis of the same, it is stated that the disputed ticket No.05645 was issued on 06.04.2001. That apart, R.W.2 also filed Xerox copy of Ex.R.1 which is a copy of the claim application in O.A.A.No.71 of 2002 filed by the applicant for the very same incident in which ticket No.85645 dated 21.6.2001 from Nandyal to Vijayawada by train No.8503 is noted for his journey and the Xerox copy of the journey ticket was also filed. Since the said O.A.A.No.71 of 2002 was withdrawn by the applicant, the evidence adduced in this application shall have to be considered to decide whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger or not. But the same was not considered in this case. Therefore, this is a fit case where the impugned order can be set aside and the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the evidence adduced by the applicant in the present case with regard to the production of ticket so as to travel in a passenger train. 12 Hence, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal directing the Tribunal to give two months time for the applicant to enable him to adduce evidence and thereafter two months time to the Railway Administration for the purpose of adducing their evidence, if any and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.09.2011 Kvsn