IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1045 OF 2008 Date:17.08.2011 Between:- Gidda Ganga R5aju ..Appellant/Applicant And Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 01.03.2006, in O.A.A.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellant/applicant under Section 16 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act read with 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) 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 05.01.2002 was dismissed on the ground that he is not a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train and the accident was on account of his negligent act. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: On 05.01.2002, at about 9.30 p.m., while the appellant was coming from Nidadavolu in train No.7615 Visakha Express, at Tanuku Railway Station, he fell down accidentally under the wheels of the train as a result of which, his right leg and right hand were crushed. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Tanuku and his journey ticket was lost when he fell down. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and pleaded that as per the version of Deputy Station Superintendent, Tanuku, train No.7615 Express arrived Tanuku at about 21.27 hours and started after two minutes halt as per schedule. When the train was on move, a person aged 30 years, had tried to get down, slipped and fell down in between platform No.1 and track, as a result of which, his right hand and leg were crushed. After rendering first aid, he was sent to Government Hospital, Tanuku for further treatment. The said person used to sell ‘samosa’ in the train. Only one ticket bearing No.889405 ex.Nidadavolu to Tanuku was issued at Nidadavolu on 05.01.2002 at 20.37 hours, at the time of arrival of train No.7615. As per Ticket Collection Report, the said ticket was collected at Tanuku, which clearly reveals that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger. 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 the train in question? 2. Whether the applicant had sustained injuries due to an untoward incident as defined under Sec.123(c) of the Act? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 4. Relief and costs? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred. 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 on the ground that the evidence of A.W.1 is contradictory to the pleading, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant is not a bona fide passenger; that the railway administration is not disputing about the appellant receiving injuries in an untoward incident; and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that as the appellant failed to produce the ticket to show that he was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal rightly disallowed the claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to sustain the same. 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. Insofar as the appellant sustaining injuries in an untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute. The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. It is the case of A.W.1 that he purchased a ticket to travel from Nidadavolu to Tanuku and while getting down from the train at Tanuku, the incident has taken place as a result of which, his right leg was crushed and later amputated. A specific plea has been taken by the appellant that he lost his ticket immediately after the incident. The appellant was taken to the hospital at Tanuku accompanied by A.W.2. Therefore, at that point of time, because of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, it may not be possible to know what had happened as to whether A.W.2 collected the ticket from him or not. It is not in dispute that ticket bearing No.889405 to travel from Nidadavolu to Tanuku was given to the Ticket Collector at Tanuku Railway Station as seen from Ex.R-2-Ticket Collection Report. Because of lapse of time, the appellant might have forgotten about handing over the ticket to A.W.2. The evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he accompanied the appellant to the hospital and thereafter, he collected the ticket from him and returned to the station for handing over the same. The evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2., who categorically stated that he handed over the ticket of the appellant to the Ticket Collector at the railway station. So, this aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 12. With regard to the awarding of compensation is concerned, it is also not in dispute that the deceased lost four fingers of right hand. Therefore, he is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-, and Rs.2,00,000/- for amputation of knee with some extension upto 3½ inches. In all, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). The appellant is entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of realization. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 01.03.2006, in O.A.A.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1045 OF 2008 Date:17.08.2011 AMD