THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 773 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 30-04-2008 in O.A.A.No.227 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 17-03-2002, the applicant-G.Srinivasa Rao purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.498 at Ramavarappadu to go to Guntur, and while he was standing near the door due to heavy rush in the compartment, and soon after it moved, he slipped and fell from the running train due to jerks, resulting which, his both legs were cut and separated and he was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital by the railway police and admitted for treatment. During treatment, his left leg was amputated above the knee and right leg was amputated below the knee. Hence, he filed this application under Section 16 of the R.C.T. Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondent-railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that as per the report of guard, one male person while attempting to enter into train, while it was in motion, fell down, run over and his both legs cut and therefore it was due to the negligent act of the deceased only and that he found the injured without valid ticket, as such, it is the case of exception to Section 124-A of the Act. Further, since he was not a bona fide passenger, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.498 Narsapur – Guntur passenger traveling from Ramavarappadu to Guntur on 17-03-2002? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train while entertaining at Ramavarappadu railway station? 3. Whether the injury sustained by the applicant amounts to self inflicted which is one of the exception u/s 124-A of Railways Act and respondent railway is not liable to pay compensation 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries 5. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of that order till the payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Union of India has filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- railways and the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant and perused the record. 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the applicant has not produced any valid ticket to show that he was a passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers and in the absence of any evidence, the applicant is not entitled for the compensation. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- applicant contended that the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he purchased a ticket, but he lost the ticket along with his money purse, in the untoward incident. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the applicant injured; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicant, then he is entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger or the injuries sustained by the applicant are not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. It is not the case of Railways that the injuries sustained by applicant was as a result of attempt to commit suicide or a result of self inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he sustained injuries due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication. His falling down from the train carrying passengers is, thus, clearly accidental. 10. Initially, the burden is on the applicant to show that he is a bona fide passenger and that he sustained injury in an untoward incident. It is not in dispute before this Court that the applicant while boarding the train, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and sustained cut injuries on his both legs. Thereafter, immediately, he lost his conscious and was taken to the hospital. On the next day, he regained consciousness and the police recorded his statement. Even though the Guard alleged to have recorded a statement from the injured, but it appears to be not true and correct as the record of the hospital authorities would clearly show that he was in unconscious immediately after the accident. Therefore, there was no scope for applicant to give a statement to Guard. The applicant was examined as A.W.1. In his evidence, he categorically stated that he purchased the ticket worth Rs.8/- and when he was trying to board the train, accidentally fell down in between platform and train and sustained cut injuries on both legs. Immediately after the accident he was in unconscious and he lost the ticket. Practically, the evidence of A.W.1 remained unchallenged. Nothing has been elicited in his cross- examination to discredit his testimony. His evidence leaves no room to doubt that he purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers. The possibility of loosing ticket in an untoward incident cannot be ruled out. There is no other reason to disbelieve the testimony of A.W.1 as both legs were cut in untoward incident. Therefore, the explanation given by A.W.1 for not producing the ticket can be acceptable and that is the reason why the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.1. 11. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 27th September 2011 kvr