THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.113 OF 2005 DATED:07-09- 2010. Between Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad. … Appellant And Thirunamalli Raj Kumar …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.113 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 04.04.2002 in O.A.A No.16 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The brief facts are that, claimant filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that on 04.10.2009, he sustained injuries at Yellakaru Railway Station in an untoward incident of accidental fall while travelling in train no.439 passenger from Tirupathi to Nellore. His right leg was amputated below the knee and left leg was amputated above the knee. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stating that there is no need for the claimant to get down at Yellakaru Railway Station while travelling from Tirupathi to Nellore. On enquiry, it was found that one male person sustained injuries on account of an attempt of rash and negligent manner to board the train and the injured has admitted in his statement before the Government Railway Police on 05-10-2009. It is further stated that the act of the claimant in boarding a moving train is an offence under Section 156 of the Railways Act and the respondent is not liable to pay compensation as the claimant has committed a criminal act and the claimant was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.439 passenger on 04-10-1997? 2.Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Yellakaru railway station ? 3.Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident ? 4.To what relief ? 5. During the enquiry, the claimant filed his affidavit in support of his case and got marked Exs.A1 to A.6. On behalf of Railways, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant sustained the injuries in an untoward incident and therefore, the Railways are liable to pay the compensation, and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the registration of the application i.e., 10-01-2000 till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Railways contended that the injured sustained injuries due to his own negligence, that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant contended that no evidence was let in to show that the respondent sustained injuries due to his own negligence, that on the other hand, the evidence of the claimant would go to show that while he was boarding the train, there was a jerk to the train as the train moved suddenly, as a result, he fell down, that the findings of the Tribunal need not be interfered with and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Taking place of untoward incident as defined under Section 124A of the Railways Act is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondent herein was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. The only contention raised by the Standing counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the claimant and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. When the Railways have taken a plea that there was a negligence on the part of the claimant, the burden is on the Railways to prove the same. Mere taking a plea is not evidence. To substantiate the plea, no evidence was let in and no documents were marked to show that there was negligence on the part of the claimant in sustaining injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and the said order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:07.09.2010 Hsd