THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4455 of 2003 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2003 in O.A.A. No.24 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application of the appellant was dismissed. 2. The appellant herein is the applicant, and the respondent herein is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident of accidental fall due to fall of luggage of co-passengers, from the train No.8563, Visakhapatnam-Bangalore Prashanti express. It is her case that she went to Vijayawada on 8.11.2002 to have darshan of Goddess Kanakadurga, and thereafter, she went to Vijayawada railway station, purchased a group ticket bearing no.15863767 to go to Nandyal, and boarded train no.8563 in general compartment. When the train reached Markalpuram railway station, she came to the door of the compartment under the impression that it was Nandyal, but on coming to know the same, she was trying to go back to her seat. But, due to heavy rush of passengers, she was pushed, as a result of which, she fell down on the floor and many passengers with their luggage fell on her resulting in fracture to her left thigh. She was admitted in Government Hospital, Nandyal with the help of railway staff. 4. Railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and contending that there is no cause of action for the applicant to claim compensation as the incident does not fall either under Section 123 (c) (2) or 124A of the Railways Act. It is also contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger and the alleged manner of occurrence of the incident is also denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues. 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.8563 Visakhapatnam-Bangalore Prashanti Express, travelling from Vijayawada – Nandyal on 8.11.2002 ? 2) Whether the applicant was a victim of an untoward incident and sustained injuries on account of falling of luggage on her in the compartment ? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.80,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident ? 4) to what relief ? 6. On behalf of the applicant, A.W. 1 was examined and Exs.A1-certificate issued by the Sub Inspector, R.P.S., Nandyal and A.2-discharge card, were got marked. No evidence was let in, on behalf of the respondent. 7. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present C.M.A. is filed by the applicant. 8. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct and proper ? 9. Heard both sides. 10. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a bona fide passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person traveling in the train with a valid ticket. 11. It is the case of the applicant that she was travelling in general compartment in train No.8563, Visakhapatnam- Bangalore Prashanti express from Vijayawada to Nandyal, and that she had fallen down from the train in an untoward incident and sustained injuries. The initial burden is on the applicant to establish that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. Except her oral evidence as A.W.1 that she purchased a ticket and was travelling in the train, there is no other material to show that she was a bona fide passenger. She has not examined any co-passenger nor produced original ticket to show that she was a bona fide passenger. 12. No doubt, according to Ex.A2-discharge card, the claimant sustained a fracture of left femur. But, it must be shown that she sustained the fracture while she was travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger. In the absence of the same, even her contention that some luggage of co-passengers fell on her, due to which she fell down from the train and sustained the injuries, also cannot be accepted. The possibility of sustaining those injuries in some other manner cannot be ruled out. If really she sustained the fracture while travelling in the train as a passenger, police would have registered a case. No case is registered by police. The applicant produced Ex.A1-certificate said to have been issued by the Sub Inspector, R.P.S., which cannot be taken as evidence unless some co-passenger is examined or a ticket is filed to show that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the applicant sustained the injuries in an untoward incident while travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger, the applicant is not entitled for any compensation. The Claims Tribunal, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record held that the applicant is not entitled for any compensation and rightly dismissed the claim petition. The said order does not suffer from any infirmities calling for interference by this Court. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------- 10.06.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4455 of 2003 Date: 10.06.2010 Between: A.Seshamma …appellant And Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, Sough Central Railways, Secunderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4455 of 2003 10.06.2010