IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 04-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.191 OF 2007 Between: Smt. D. Dhanalakshmi @ Dhanamma. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.191 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act) is directed by the appellant/applicant against order dated 23-11-2006 passed in O.A.A. No.316 of 2006, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) where under and whereby application filed by the appellant/applicant was partly allowed. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.316 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. No.316 of 2006 for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in a train accident between Valigonda and Ramannapet railway stations on the early morning of 29-10-2005. It is clearly pleaded in the application that the applicant accompanied by her husband was traveling from Guntur to Secunderabad in a general compartment in train No.415 Repalle – Secunderabad Delta passenger with a valid ticket and during the travel the train derailed between Valigonda and Ramannapet railway stations and met with a ghastly accident and she sustained injuries, following which she filed the claim application. 4. The respondent filed his written statement admitting the accident but claiming the amount sought to be awarded as excessive and exorbitant. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of Train No.415 Delta Passenger on 28/29-10-2005? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of accident to the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, she got examined herself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 which are medical documents. On behalf of the respondent, list of injured persons in the accident was marked as Ex.R-1. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant as far as the question of occurrence of the accident is concerned but limited the payment of compensation to Rs.10,000/- in all on the ground that Ex.A-2 O.P. Chit which provides that the applicant received two fractures was not proved whereas Ex.A-1 O.P. Chit does not provide that the applicant received any fractures. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there was a train accident as a result of which number of passengers traveling in the train received injuries and they were treated by doctors and in that process it is quite possible that in Ex.A-1 O.P. Chit the injuries actually received by the applicant were not noted and further there is no reason to reject Ex.A-2 and prayed to enhance the compensation as claimed. 9. In order to dispose of the Appeal, it is to be mainly considered here whether the applicant is entitled to the enhanced compensation? 10. As per Ex.A-2 the applicant received the said injuries and as per Ex.A-1 O.P. Chit no such injuries were caused to her and no x-rays were filed in support of her claim. Hence it is difficult to uphold the claim of the applicant. Unless there is sufficient material it is difficult to come to a conclusion with regards to any aspect. The applicant should have taken necessary measures to uphold his contention and by not doing so adverse inference is to be drawn. In fact the Tribunal is liberal in awarding the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for two simple injuries observing that in the train accident he would have received such injuries. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 04-02- 2011. DSH