IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.932 OF 2008 Date:21.09.2011 Between:- K.Rajesh ..Appellant And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 24.11.2006, in O.A.A.No.286 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellant/applicant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident that took place on 23.10.2001, was dismissed. 2. The appellant/applicant filed the claim application stating that on 23.10.2001, having reserved journey ticket bearing No.76869670 with PNR No.111-6349060 berth No.14 in Coach No.S-6 of 2704 Falaknuma Express, he came to Secunderabad to go to Rajahmundry and while the train was backing on platform No.5, he entered into Coach No.6 and due to rush of passengers and jerk of the train, he fell down on the track from the steps of the bogie, sustained severe injuries, and the railway police sent him to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. 3. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that there was no fall from any train and the alleged fall of the applicant, as claimed, does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) as an untoward incident; that the applicant has to prove that he had a fall from train No.2704 since he seems to have fallen while entering into coach No.6 when the train was being backed on platform No.5 and therefore, the fall was due to criminal acts of the injured within the definition of ‘Self inflicted injuries’ absolving the railways from payment of compensation, but however conceded that ticket with PNR number mentioned by the injured applicant has been issued to one Rajesh Kulkarni and therefore, the applicant has to prove that the ticket was issued to him. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 2. Whether the applicant had sustained injuries due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act? 3. Relief and costs? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The case sheet of the injured applicant was summoned and marked as Exs.C1 to C8. 6. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the applicant failed to prove that he sustained the injuries due to an untoward incident. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the claimants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the injured sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the injured was not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and he sustained injuries in an untoward incident, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to sustain the same. 11. It is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket, but that alone is not sufficient for granting compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. Unless a passenger sustains some injuries in an untoward incident while travelling in a train carrying passengers, he cannot be granted compensation. The appellant contended that he had fallen down from the platform due to rush of passengers and jerk of the train, and sustained fractures to his body. His oral assertion cannot be accepted in the absence of any medical evidence. If really the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident, police would have registered a case and would have referred to the hospital. Except the out patient chit, he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he sustained some injuries as mentioned in the schedule or unscheduled injuries. In the out patient chit, there is no clear indication that applicant sustained fractures. The Court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not, produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Where a party suppresses the best relevant evidence, the Court is entitled to raise a presumption that such an evidence, if produced, would be unfavourable to him. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 21st September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.932 OF 2008 Date:21.09.2011 AMD