THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.744 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 03.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.39 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant/applicant in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 20.09.1999, while the applicant was returning from Vijayawada to Mancherial by train No.2615, Chennai – New Delhi G.T. Express, in II Class general compartment, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train near Mancherial Railway Station due to speed and sudden jerk of the train and as a result, he sustained injuries. He was shifted to Sai Orthopaedic and Maternity Cilnic, Mancherial, by some Railway staff with the help of his friends for first aid and again shifted him to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, for further treatment. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways denied the case of the applicant stating that no such incident was reported at Mancherial Railway Station nor any complaint was lodged by anybody to the authorities; that the Guard of the train had not reported any incident of accidental fall from the train or any other untoward incident near Mancherial Railway Station on 20.09.1999 and that there was no complaint made to the Guard. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.2615 Chennai – New Delhi G.T. Express traveling from Vijayawada to Mancherial on 20.09.1999? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Mancherial Railway Station, as alleged? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs as prayed? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, AW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was got marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant failed to prove his case that in an untoward incident he sustained injuries and accordingly, dismissed the claim of the applicant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ex.A6 is the document issued by the Apollo Hospitals, which clearly shows that the left hand fingers and left foot of the appellant were cut; that Ex.A6 was not denied or disputed; that the appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling in the express train; that the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident and therefore, she prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent – railways opposed the same on the ground that the amputation of left foot and left hand of the appellant are not proved; that the findings of the Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that none of the findings is shown to be false or incorrect as the injuries sustained by the appellant are not shown to be proved; that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, two requirements have to be satisfied viz., (1) there is an untoward incident in which the person received injuries or died and (2) the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled for compensation. 10. The fact that the appellant is a bona fide passenger travelling in the said passenger train is not in dispute. The fact that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident is not in dispute. On the sole ground that the appellant has not proved his injuries by medical evidence, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant. But, the documents filed on behalf of the appellant have not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. No doubt, when the railway administration is disputing about the Wound Certificate, necessarily the doctor who treated the appellant has to be examined as a witness to prove the Wound Certificate issued by him. Ex.A6 is the Wound Certificate issued by the doctor, which clearly shows the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. Ex.A6 has not been challenged. Once a document has been admitted and the contents of the document are not denied or disputed, it can be inferred that an implicit reliance can be placed upon the said document. As seen from Ex.A6, the Summary of Treatment is as follows: “Under G.A under tourniquet control debredement done for Left Foot, mid tarsal amputation done. Under image intensifier control, olecranon fracture fixed with cancellous screw per cutaneously. Plastic – debredement, Left hand, non viable, 2nd, 3rd & 4th fingers amputated Little finger & thumb stabilized….” From the above document it is clear that there was amputation of the left foot. As per item No.8 of part – III of Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the amount of compensation payable for the injuries in respect of loss of three fingers of one hand is Rs.1,20,000/-. Insofar as amputation of one foot, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, in total, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.39 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, and awarding compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the appellant with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 25, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.744 OF 2006 Between: Sunil Chandak .....APPELLANT AND The Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.744 OF 2006 March 25, 2011