THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1263 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is directed against the order dated 02.05.2005 passed in O.A.A.No.70 of 1994 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by the appellant, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on account of accidental fall from train No.7086 at Anantapur at 09.30 p.m. on 03.12.1993, was dismissed. Appellant is the applicant in the said O.A.A. and respondent is the South Central Railways. It appears, the appellant-applicant, being an employee, was a regular commuter from Hindupur to Anantapur. On earlier occasion, the appellant approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, by filing O.A.A.No.70 of 1994, alleging that he holds a season ticket to travel from Hindupur to Anantapur. He alleged that he slipped down accidentally on 03.12.1993 from train bearing No.7086, at Anantapur Railway Station, when the train was about to halt. He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, alleging that he sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of the right leg and left foot. The respondent disputed the claim of the applicant. Its main contention was that, as on the date of the accident, the provisions of the Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) did not provide for payment of any compensation for accidental fall. Through its judgment dated 20.12.1995, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and rejected the claim. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed A.A.O.638 of 1996 before this Court and it was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court. However, in L.P.A.No.97 of 2002, a Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of learned single Judge and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rangila Ram[1]. After remand, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A.A.No.70 of 1994 by order dated 15.09.2003, holding that since the amended provisions of Section 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act are not applicable to the applicant and since these provisions are not retrospective in operation, the claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation and the respondent railways are not liable to pay any compensation. Challenging the same, the applicant approached this Court by filing C.M.A.No.1287 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 08.07.2004, holding that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of amended provisions of Sec. 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of injuries and awarding of compensation, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal, by order dated 02.05.2005, again dismissed the said O.A.A.No.70 of 1994 holding that since the incident had occurred on account of own negligence of the applicant, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. It is an unfortunate case that twice the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for determination. Though some lacunae have been pointed out in the order impugned, instead of remanding the matter which pertains to the year 1995, at this length of time, for consideration afresh, I am of the considered opinion that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the matter can be disposed of by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded its findings at paragraphs 14 and 15, which read as under: “A perusal of the above evidence shows that as per the statement of his own, the applicant got down from the train at the last minute after the halt of the train at Anantapur station when the train started moving after halt. The evidence of the Guard clearly shows without any doubt that the applicant would not have got out of the train during the schedule time of halt of the train and he got down only after the train restarted after its usual schedule time halt. The certificate, Ex.A2 also indicates that the applicant got down from the train at the last minute when the train had started from the station after observing the schedule time of its halt. Thus, the entire evidence clearly shows that the applicant got down from the train while it had started after its usual time of half of 5 minutes. The applicant should have got down from the train within the schedule time of 5 mts., and he should not have got down from the train after the train had restarted even after hearing the ringing of the bell of the train. Therefore, in our opinion the evidence on record clearly proves that the act of the applicant was negligent and imprudent. In our opinion the applicant fell on account of his own negligence and the imprudent act. In this case, the respondent railway has therefore, discharged its burden to prove the negligence and imprudent act on the part of the applicant leading to this incident. The facts of the case are clearly covered by the law laid down in the case of Union of India, South Central Railway Vs. K.Balakrishnaiah reported in ALT 2004(1) ALT 100 (F.B.). Regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant, we are of the opinion that since the Railway has proved that the incident had occurred on account of the own negligence of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief, as such we do not feel it necessary to ascertain to the nature of the injuries of the applicant.” By recording the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal held that the incident had occurred on account of the own negligence of the appellant. While the facts that the appellant was holding a season ticket and had traveled in the general compartment from Hindupur to Anantapur on the date of the alleged incident and received injuries while getting down from train No.7086 at Anantapur at 9.30 p.m. are not in dispute, but the only defence taken by the railways was that the appellant did not get down from the train till the last minute of the schedule time of halt of the train at Anantapur and when the train started moving after its schedule time of halt, he jumped from the moving train and, therefore, he himself was responsible for the accident and no negligence can be attributed to the Railways for the alleged accident and the injuries suffered by the appellant. In this regard, I would like to refer to the relevant portion of the evidence of witness No.1, who is none other than the applicant himself, examined by the Member Judicial on 01.11.1995, which reads as under: “ The schedule halting time for the train was 5 minutes. After 5 minutes the bell was given for starting. Then the train started while he was getting down. The train while starting gave a backward movement as a result he lost balance and fell down.” Cross-examination: The compartment in which he was traveling was a general compartment and was overcrowded. Therefore he could not get down immediately after the train stopped. He was able to get down only at the last minute. He heard the ringing of the bell while he was getting down from the train. The witness denies the suggestion that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the applicant and not on account of any negligence on the part of the railways.” From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that as the general compartment in which the applicant was traveling was overcrowded, the applicant could not get down immediately after the train stopped and he was able to get down only at the last minute of the schedule halting time. The applicant, in fact, stated that while he was getting down, the train started with a backward movement, as a result of which he lost balance and fell down from the train. Therefore, nothing could be elicited from the aforesaid evidence of the appellant-applicant to show that he sustained injuries due to his own negligence and, on the other hand, it appears to be most natural. The evidence of RW.1, who filed the affidavit in lieu of his chief- examination, would show that after giving whistle and driver’s siren, the train started moving and then he observed one male person jumping out of the train and consequently fell under the wheels of the train and run over by the train. Ex.A2-certificate given by the Sub- Inspector of Police of Anantapur Railway Protection Force, shows that the applicant traveled on 03.12.1993 from Hindupur to Anantapur in general compartment of Train No.7086. The said certificate further shows that when the said train stopped at Anantapur Railway Station, the applicant tried to get down from the train, and while getting down, the train started moving, due to which he slipped down and met with an accident. Thus, in view of this corroborative evidence, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the applicant and, therefore, Railways is liable to pay compensation to the applicant as per law. As the appellant sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of the right leg and left foot, which falls under item No.3 of Part II of the Schedule for Railway Accidents and Untoward (Incidents) (Compensation) Rules, 1990, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 02.05.2005 passed in O.A.A.No.70 of 1994 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is set aside and the respondent-Railways is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. The civil miscellaneous appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 19.08.2010 v v [1] AIR 1996 SC 206