IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.779 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 Between:- The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Tummala Siva Rama Prasad .. Respondent/Applicant JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 01.05.2006 in O.A.A.No.367 of 2003 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 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 08.06.2003 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: On 08.06.2003, the applicant was travelling from Repalle to Bhattiprolu by Train No.D123 under valid ticket No.30258928 and while he was alighting at the destination, he had fallen accidentally from the train resulting in amputation of both legs below the knees and fracture of right hand and fingers. He was referred to Government Hospital, Tenali for treatment. The police, on receipt of first information report, registered a case and examined the injured. 3. The appellant-railways denied the averments in the petition but admitted that as per the report of the Guard of train No.D123, on 08.06.2003, the train reached at 9.41 hours, and after the schedule halt, the train was allowed to move and he was watching train till it left the end of the platform and there was no fall of any passenger. But after the train leaving the platform, he watched from the rear view glass and noticed a person lying by the side of the rail track i.e., off side of the platform. He instructed the driver to back the train upto the spot and in the meanwhile CNC reached the spot and phoned for medical aid. There was no eye witness to the fall so as to attract Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’). 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 in question? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4 lakhs? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material available on record, granted compensation to the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and that the evidence of R.W.1 would go to show that he must have fallen down from some other train but not Train No.D123 and therefore, the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents sought to sustain the impugned order. 10. Two requirements are to be satisfied in a claim for compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant. One is that a person sustained an injury in an untoward incident and secondly, he must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The injured has produced a ticket bearing No.30258928 to travel by Passenger Train from Repalle to Bhattiprolu. His evidence would clearly go to show that on 08.06.2003, he purchased a ticket and after reaching his destination, while he was alighting from the train, he accidentally fell down in between the platform and the compartment as a result, he sustained grievous injuries including amputation. The ticket was not shown to be a fabricated or false ticket. When the railway administration claims that the injured is not a bona fide passenger, the burden is on the railways to establish that the injured was not a bona fide passenger. No competent person on behalf of the railways is examined to show that the ticket bearing No.30258928 is not a valid ticket. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.1 coupled with the ticket, it is clear that the injured was a bona fide passenger. 12. Further, the evidence of A.W.1 coupled with the wound certificate would clearly go to show that he fell down accidentally while alighting from the train. No doubt, R.W.1 has stated that he noticed a person lying by the side of the track. It may be possible because the Guard of the train would be present at the end of the train. The applicant must have fallen from a compartment of front portion of the train. So, it cannot be said that he had fallen from some other train and not from Train No.D123. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.779 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 AMD