IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.905 of 2008. Date:06.09.2011 Between:- Shaik Adam ..Appellant/Applicant And The 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 25.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.163 of 2001 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 Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident that took place on 23.12.1996 was dismissed. 2. On 23.12.1996, when the applicant was travelling in Train No.375 Kazipet-Vijayawada Passenger from Khammam to Vijayawada in general compartment, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Vijayawada Railway station as a result of which, his right leg was amputated after treatment in University General Hospital, Vijayawada. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that train No.375 arrived Vijayawada station at 14.25 hours and after waiting for 15 minutes to deal with the parcels, left the station without any untoward incident, and therefore, the alleged incident is to be proved by the applicant; that the injured was not a bona fide passenger and put the onus on the injured to prove that he was a bona fide passenger, and also that he has travelled by the said train on the date of incident. 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 No.375 Kazipet – Vijayawada passenger travelling from Khammam to Vijayawada on 23.12.1996? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vijayawada Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Two requirements are to be proved 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 proved, then, the applicant is entitled to compensation. The Railway administration can establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act so as to avoid compensation. 9. The case of the applicant is that the boy aged 13 years has fallen from the general compartment of the train as a result of which, his right leg was amputated after treatment in University General Hospital, Vijayawada. To substantiate her case, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the untoward incident has not been established by the applicant and she has not filed any documents to show that the applicant was a bona fide passenger, and consequently, dismissed the petition. The Tribunal directed the police to produce the Case Diary, First Information Report and General Diary Entry. Because the railway police have not produced the same, an adverse inference has been drawn against the applicant. The necessary evidence that is required to be placed before the Tribunal has not been placed by the applicant because he was aged 13 years as on the date of incident and he is a resident of remote village, and he is represented by his mother. Perhaps, as no male person was assisting the applicant, necessary documents that are required to be produced with regard to the untoward incident whereunder the applicant sustained the injury have not been produced. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the trial Court to enable the applicant to produce all the necessary evidence to substantiate his case. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court giving two months time to the appellant from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce necessary evidence before the Tribunal to prove his case and thereafter, two months time shall be given by the trial Court to the respondent to adduce its evidence. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 06th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.905 of 2008. Date:06.09.2011 AMD