IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 27-01-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3176 OF 2004 Between: R. Nagajyothi. --- 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.3176 OF 2004 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against order dated 31- 05-2004 passed in O.A.A. No.99 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.99 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. No.99 of 2003 for compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in a train accident between Pandekal and Gooty railway stations during the intervening night of 20/21-12-2002. It is clearly pleaded in the application that the applicant accompanied by her husband, parents and daughter were traveling from Kacheguda to Bangalore in a reserved compartment bearing coach No. S-14 in train No.7685 i.e., Kacheguda – Bangalore express with a group ticket and during the travel she fell down from her berth and sustained injuries following which she filed the same. 4. The respondent filed his written statement admitting the accident but claiming the amount sought to be paid as excessive and exorbitant. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in the train accident of train No.7685 Kachiguda – Bangalore express, if so, to what extent the applicant is entitled to claim? 2 . Whether the applicant lost luggage in the train accident as alleged, if so, to what extent she is entitled to? 3. To what relief? 6. The applicant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is prescription dt.22-12-2002, Ex.A-2 is certificate dt.22-12- 2002, Ex.A-3 is certificate dt.29-12-2002 and Ex.A-4 is reply from Chief Claims Officer dt.21-01-2003. On behalf of the respondent, Dr. M.D. Naik, who accompanies the injured persons, was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R-1 was marked. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant sustained only minor injuries and partly allowed the application awarding a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant received contusions on both of her legs and also lost her luggage in the accident for which compensation has to be paid but the Tribunal failed to consider the matter properly and accordingly the compensation is to be increased. 9. In order to dispose of the Appeal, the following points are to be examined and decided : 1. Whether the applicant-appellant placed sufficient evidence in order to grant the compensation actually claimed? 2. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion? 3. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 4. Whether the applicant-appellant is entitled to the compensation actually claimed? 10. As per the medical record, the applicant received only one contusion and with regard to the loss of luggage Ex.A-4 reply from the Chief Claims Officer provides that the Railway Administration does not entertain any claim of compensation for accident or loss of luggage etc., unless a complaint is lodged and decided before the appropriate Railway Tribunal. Further, it is clearly observed in Para No.12 of the order of the Tribunal that the applicant failed to lodge any complaint immediately after the occurrence and though she claims that she lodged a complaint regarding the loss of her luggage and articles and also received a reply to her complaint, she has not filed any document in that context and she has not stated in her affidavit as to whether she wore any chain around her neck by the time of accident or she had kept it in her bag then. She filed the affidavit much later to the date of accident. Further, In my opinion, examining the gravity of the injuries and probable pain he would have suffered thereupon and also the consequential treatment he would have undergone, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- is quite reasonable. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and ultimately it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 27-01- 2011. DSH