THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A No. 59 OF 2010 Date: 05-09-2011 Between Union of India, rep., by the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad …..Appellant And Ch. Satyanarayana …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A No. 59 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 19-10-2009 passed in O.A.A No. 322 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent – applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the injuries sustained by him was allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- and interest was granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and thereafter at 9% per annum, till the date of actual payment. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the C.M.A may be stated as under: The respondent filed the said O.A.A under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- stating that on 20-06-2005 he travelled from Guntur to Nadikudi in train No.7005 and for the onward journey to Macherla, he boarded train No.485, but fell down from the train at Khambhampadu Railway Cross Road and sustained injuries. He filed ticket bearing No.43575469 to travel from Guntur to Macherla and claimed Rs.4,00,000 on the ground that his left hand was amputated above elbow and he had also sustained multiple injuries. 3. The appellant – railways denied the averments made in the application by way of filing a written statement stating that the guard, the driver of train and the Government Railway Police were unaware of the incident and that there was no evidence of the travel produced by the respondent - applicant and his falling down from the train, except the statement recorded by Town Police of Macherla who are not relevant authorities. According to the appellant, the ticket was planted and that the respondent – applicant was responsible for his own injury and he was not a bona fide passenger as he might have had a road or other accident. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger? 2) Whether he sustained injury on account of a fall from the train? and 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, his father was examined as AW 1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant - railways, none was examined and no document was marked. 6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and fell from the passenger train which was an untoward incident and, therefore, he is entitled to Rs.3,20,000/- as per schedule to the Rules under Part III as his elbow had been amputated leaving a stump below his shoulder of less than eight inches and Rs.10,000/- for the other lacerated wounds. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,30,000/- and accordingly, allowed the O.A.A. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – railways vehemently contended that the injured – applicant was not examined before the Tribunal; that the ticket Ex.A-1 was planted subsequent to the incident; that there was no halt of train at Kambhampadu to enable the applicant to get down from the train at Khambhampadu Railway Cross Roads and that there was no evidence to show that the applicant’s left hand below the shoulder was amputated consequent upon injuries sustained in an untoward incident and hence he prays to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent – applicant contended that the father of the applicant was examined to speak about the amputation and also the injuries sustained by the applicant and that the applicant had fallen from the train accidentally and sustained injuries, and that considering all the aspects, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimant is that an untoward incident had happened and in that incident, the applicant sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If the two requirements are proved, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. According to AW 1, as his son was travelling with a valid ticket Ex.A- 1 from Guntur to Macherla in the express train for the first instance and thereafter for going to Macherla on onward journey, necessarily he has to board another train. It is not in dispute that the express train would not pass through Macherla Railway Station. If it is the case of the railway administration that Ex.A-1 is not a valid ticket it is for the railway administration to adduce necessary evidence in order to establish that Ex.A-1 is not a valid ticket as the burden lies on it to disprove the same. Such evidence was not adduced on behalf of the railway administration. Sustaining of injuries by the respondent – applicant due to falling down from the train while travelling in passenger train No. 485 is not seriously disputed because the earliest documents such as the police diary and the hospital records would clearly go to show that the alleged injuries sustained by the respondent – applicant are due to fall from a train. It is the case of the railway administration that as there was no halt of train at Khambhampadu, there was negligence on the part of the applicant in trying to get down from the train and thus he sustained injuries and, therefore, for the lapses on the part of the applicant, he cannot derive any monetary advantage. The defence of negligence on the part of the applicant is not available to the railway administration unless its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Admittedly, the present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided in that proviso. Therefore, accidental falling of applicant from a running train is established beyond preponderance of probability and thus he was a bona fide passenger to travel in a passenger train having a valid ticket Ex.A-1. Further, since the applicant is a minor, there is nothing wrong in examining his father in the trial Court. It is not the case of the railway administration that the applicant is not the son of AW 1 and that Exs.A-6 and A-7 do not relate to him. Exs.A-6 and A-7 would clearly go to show that the applicant’s left hand below the shoulder was amputated. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J 05-09-2011 ks