IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.17-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1063 OF 2006 Between: M. Raju. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1063 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. The appeal which is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against order of dismissal dated 05-05-2006 passed in O.A.A. No.47 of 2001 filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that the appellant received injuries by virtue of a fall from train bearing No.692 while traveling from Umdanagar - Secunderabad (local train ) at Huppuguda holding valid ticket. 2. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the appellant. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application. 4. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of local train Umdanagar _ Secunderabad, traveling from Huppuguda to Secunderabad? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Secunderabad railway station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the alleged injuries sustained by him as prayed? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, he got herself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 which happened to be relevant G.D. entries. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 who happened to be Booking Supervisor, Huppuguda Railway Station, was examined as RW.2 and the Guard of the train was examined as RW.3 and got marked Exs. R-1 and R-2. 6. On the strength of the material available on record, the Tribunal observed as follows : “It is not the case that the ticket has been lost when the injured suffered the alleged fall in as much as the G.D. extract, Ex.A-2 and entry No.42 at 01-30 hours on 24/25-07-2000 recorded after HC 291/PC 317 reported after their visit to Gandhi Hospital that the applicant was in possession of ticket No.11836. It is to be noted here that during cross-examination he has stated that the ticket was taken by the police. On the other hand the respondent railways through Booking Supervisor of Huppuguda railway station on the relevant date, examined as RW.3, supported by ExR-1 and R-2 has proved that the alleged ticket No.11836 was not issued from Huppuguda station on 24-07-2000 as alleged by the applicant. A perusal of Daily Trains cum Cash Register of Huppuguda station for the month of July 2000, marked as Ex.R-1 sustains the deposition of RW.-3. Interestingly, after the testimony of RW.3 on 06- 12-2005 the applicant filed an I.A. 69/2006 dt.20-01-2006 pleading that he has wrongly mentioned the ticket based on the wrong translation of G.D. Extract. As for the fall itself, he has stated that he had accidentally fallen down and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital by Government Railway Police. His own documents disprove this version. Ex.A-1 G.D. Extract, serial No.40 in page 224 recorded at 23-15 hours on 24-02-2000 shows that a telephonic message was received from Gandhi Hospital about the injury to one person by name Raju. Therefore, it is clear that the case of the applicant that after the fall he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital by Government Railway Police is totally false. Again his sworn affidavit and averments made in the cross-examination smack of total falsehood. In the cross-examination he stated that nobody noticed the fall and no railway staff came but in the same breath he stated that Government Railway Police had come to pull him out and had taken him to Gandhi Hospital. In this context the passenger guard of train on 24-07-2000 examined as RW.2 has stated that no incident of fall from his train took place after his train arrived at Secunderabad station nor anything was brought to his notice. Nothing in support of the case of the applicant was elicited in the cross-examination. Obviously there has been no fall of the applicant from any train and much less any untoward incident. In the circumstances he is not entitled for any compensation.” 7. With those observations, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that before the Tribunal, an application was filed for calling G.D. entries of the railway police, but it was dismissed and basing upon wrong entry made in the G.D. the corresponding ticket number was given by the applicant and if correct G.D. entry is submitted, the truth will come to light with regards to the actual ticket used by the applicant which in fact was handed over to the police and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to take necessary steps in that regard. 9. Therefore it is to be mainly examined as to : 1. Whether the applicant placed sufficient evidence with regards to his travel by the train? 2. Whether he was a bona fide passenger of the train? 3. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at a correct conclusions and whether its order is sustainable or not? 10. It is pertinent to note here that admittedly before the Tribunal an application was filed for calling correct G.D. entries of the railway police but it was dismissed. In such case, the applicant should have taken necessary steps to prefer revision against such order. It appears that at the instance of applicant Exs.A-1 and A-2 were produced and marked before the Court. Even though the applicant failed to avail the opportunity of setting aside the dismissal order in the interlocutory application at the earliest point of time, in the interest of Justice it is necessary to see that necessary steps are taken to call for the relevant G.D. entries for the purpose of enabling the applicant to prove his claim. Hence, for this the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal. In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to take steps to call for the relevant G.D. entries and give an opportunity to the applicant to prove his case and further the matter should be disposed of by the Tribunal within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as the application has become very old. No order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 17-02- 2011. DSH