THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 996 of 1997 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.1996 in O.A. No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The appellant herein is the claimant in the O.A. 2. The appellant herein filed the O.A. stating that on 24.8.1995, he boarded train No.481 at Vijayawada to go to Gudivada, purchasing second class ticket, and after the train started, he felt vomiting sensation and went to wash basin in the compartment; at that time, the train picked up high speed suddenly and as a result he fell down from the train and his two legs were cut. It is further stated that his ticket was collected by G.R.P. people. Hence, the petition for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in this untoward incident. 3. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations in the application and stating that even admitting the case of the applicant as true, he fell down due to his own negligence and therefore the injury amounts to self-inflicted injury and the same is not attracted by Section 124A of the Railways Act; that, the applicant has to prove that he was a bona fide passenger and also the nature of the injuries. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. 1) Whether the applicant fell from the train and sustained injuries as alleged and whether it is not untoward incident ? 2) What is the nature of the injuries sustained in the accident ? 3) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger ? 4) To what amount of compensation the Applicant is entitled to? 5) to what relief ? 5. On behalf of the applicant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. C.W.1 was examined as Court Witness. 6. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present C.M.A. is filed by the applicant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that the appellant was travelling in the train as bona fide passenger and that their evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal in right perspective, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation to the appellant. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no material to show that the appellant was travelling in the train as bona fide passenger and he sustained injuries in the untoward incident, and that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the C.M.A. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation, it must be shown that the appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and an untoward incident took place and in that incident he sustained the injuries. No doubt, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that P.W.1 boarded the train and while he was getting down from the train, he fell down, and wheels of the passenger train ran over his both legs, and that he is a bona fide passenger. But, the earliest version recorded by the police shows that the appellant was not travelling in the train at the relevant point of time of the untoward incident. P.W.2, who was traveling in the train, categorically stated that the appellant was crossing on railway track and in the process of crossing, the incident occurred. Therefore it cannot be said to be untoward incident that took place during the course of accident. 10. Though P.W.2 stated that P.W.1 purchased the ticket for boarding the train, but that ticket has not been produced or filed into the Court. According to P.W.1, that ticket was collected by railway police. According to C.W.1, who was the Head Constable working in Government Railway Police Station, he did not searched the injured person’s pocket with regard to his belongings and he categorically stated that he did not seize any ticket from P.W.1. Therefore, P.W.1 cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train. The Tribunal rightly held that P.W.1 is not at all a passenger in the first instance, and he cannot not held to be bona fide passenger, and accordingly dismissed the claim. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the order dated 11.12.1996 in O.A. No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. No costs. --------------- 9.3.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 996 OF 1997 Date: 9.3.2010 Between: Dunaka Venkateswara Rao …appellant And The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 996 of 1997 9.3.2010