HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1164 OF 2008 DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway,. Secunderabad …….Appellant and Tarigoppula Venkata Lakshamma ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1164 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunals Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 3.11.2005 passed in OAA.No. 332 of 1999 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, allowed the claim application of the respondent herein awarding compensation. Heard. Perused the record. It is the case of the appellant-Railway that the respondent/applicant was not a bona fide passenger on the relevant day and that the injuries sustained by the respondent/applicant would amount to self inflicted injuries and as such the appellant-railways is not liable to pay compensation. It was the case of the respondent/applicant that while she was travelling by train No.428: Guntur-Guntakal passenger in general compartment, when the train was halting at Markapurm Railway Station, she was hit by the door of the compartment due to jerks, as a result of which, she fell down, the wheels of the train ran over the hands and thereby both her hands were cut. While it was the case of the appellant/Railways that the respondent/applicant tried to alight from the moving train before it came to a halt and during that process, she fell down and sustained injuries, it was the case of the respondent/applicant that when the train was halting at the platform, she came to the door with an intention to get down after the halt, but she fell down accidentally and the wheels ran over her hands resulting in the amputation of her right hand up to shoulder joint and amputation of left hand below the elbow. The appellant-Railway examined two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 to support its case that the injuries sustained by the respondent/applicant would amount to self inflicted injuries in as much as she tried to alight the moving train before the train came to a halt. However, R.W.1 and 2 deposed that they did not witness the incident as to how she fell down, but they admitted in their cross-examination that they went to the spot where the respondent/applicant had fallen. As such, there was no direct witness to prove that the injuries sustained by the respondent/applicant amounted to self inflected injuries. The nature of incident that may result in serious injuries or death of bona fide passengers travelling in a train is elaborately dealt with in Section 123 of the Railways Act. Further the fact that the respondent/applicant sustained injuries on the track at railway station platform which was spoken to by RWs. 1 and 2 clearly discloses that the injuries suffered only on account of accidental fall from the train. Even the Ex.A.1 police Certificate corroborates the same. As such, it cannot be said that there was any attempt on the part of the respondent/applicant herself to cause self inflicted injury. It is a case where injuries sustained by the applicant are admitted. When the Railways alleged that the respondent/applicant herself caused self inflicted injury, it is for the Railways to prove the negligence and carelessness on her part. As the burden which lies on the appellant/railways remained un-discharged, there is no other option except to disbelieve the case of the respondent/applicant. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent/applicant was not a bona fide passenger on the relevant day. The respondent/applicant in her affidavit filed in support of the claim application as well as in her cross-examination stated that she had purchased ticket from Donakonda to Markapuram by paying fare of Rs.5/-. The Tribunal following the earlier judgments of this Court rightly held that when such serious accident took place there was every possibility of ticket being lost in the accident. Therefore in the absence of any other material, no presumption can be drawn against the respondent/applicant. The attitude of the Tribunals and the Courts while dealing with such cases has been enumerated by the Apex Court in a number of its decisions. Needless to state, the beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal interpretation and doctrinaire approach should be avoided as it might choke such beneficial statute. The tribunal basing on the material, rightly held that the respondent/applicant was a bona fide passenger and the injuries sustained by her were due to alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from train No. 428: Guntur-Guntakal passenger on 26.11.1999. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011. Msnro