IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.301 of 2011 Date:18.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Thukaram .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.08.2010, in O.A.A.No.189 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondent/applicant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident that took place on 06.08.2000, was allowed. 2. The respondent/applicant filed the claim application stating that on 06.08.2000, at about 21.30 hours, he purchased a ticket bearing No.00506990 to travel from Kachiguda to Falaknuma and boarded train No.689; that as the train started with sudden jerk, he accidentally fell down from the train and his two legs came underneath the wheels of the train resulting crush injury to his both legs; that immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and his both legs were amputated below the knee. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application and 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) or 124-A of the Act and further submitted that the alleged incident, if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and such acts disentitle the applicant from claiming compensation for such self inflicted injuries, and prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.689 travelling from Kachiguda to Falaknuma on 06.08.2000? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were got marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the applicant did not produce any ticket to show that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and therefore, the Railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant contended that the injured was shifted immediately to the hospital after the untoward incident and the Head Constable recorded the statement from the injured wherein it is clearly stated that the injured purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the injured sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the injured is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the untoward incident happened while the deceased was travelling in a train bearing No.689. Due to the sudden jerk, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and both his legs came under the wheels of the train resulting crush injuries to both the legs. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and both the legs were amputated below the knee. His statement was recorded by the Head Constable, which is marked as Ex.A-1. Further more, the injured was examined as A.W.1 whereunder he stated that he purchased a ticket bearing No.00506990, which is not shown to be invalid ticket. Simply because the applicant did not produce the ticket, it does not mean that he was not a bona fide passenger. A.W.2, who was on duty, saw the incident and he took the injured to the hospital. So, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the applicant is a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Hence, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.301 of 2011 Date:18.10.2011 AMD