THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.315 of 2010 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order dated 29-01-2010, passed by the Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, in O.A.A.No.225 of 2003. The respondent filed the O.A.A, claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation, for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, on 12-04-2003. It was pleaded that the respondent boarded train No.D-137 passenger, Ex.Bhimavaram – Rajahmundry; at Nidadavolu, by purchasing the ticket, and that on account of the sudden jerk of the train, she fell down; came under the wheels of the train, and both her legs were cut near the knee. The claim was opposed by the appellant, by stating that, it does not fall within the scope of Section 123 (c)(2) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It was stated that, according to the version of the Guard of the train, the respondent jumped from the train along with certain others, and the same resulted injuries. The Tribunal found that the injuries received by the respondent were on account of the untoward incident, and awarded a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence on record disclosed that the petitioner fell down from the train, on account of her negligence, and there was absolutely no fault on the part of the Railways. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent is a bona fide passenger, and since the accident occurred in the Railway Station itself, it cannot be said that there is no liability on the part of the appellant. It is a matter of record that the respondent fell from the train and came under the wheels. The accident occurred right in the Nidadavolu Railway Station. The appellant resisted the claim, by attributing the negligence to the respondent herself. The Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration, as under: 1) Whether the minor applicant Shaik Mary was a bona fide passenger of a train from which she fell down at Nidadavolu railway station? 2) Whether the applicant is a victim of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4 lakhs? On behalf of the respondent, AWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were filed. On behalf of the appellant RW-1 was examined, and Ex.R-1 was filed. It would have been certainly difficult for the respondent to prove that the injuries suffered by her, on account of an accidental fall, had the incident occurred somewhere in between two railway stations. Heavy burden would have rested upon her, to prove the relevant facts. In the instant case, the accident occurred right in the premises of the railway station. The general diary of the concerned Police Station is marked as Ex.A-1, and wound certificate is marked as Ex.A-6. It is not in dispute that both the legs of the respondent were cut and she became permanently disabled. The extent of disability suffered by her is certified under Ex.A-9. A clear finding was recorded to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the sudden jerk of the train. The Tribunal discussed the relevant issues, taking into account the oral and documentary evidence. The compensation was awarded as per the relevant parameters. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.M.A is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-07-2010. KO