HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.345 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011 Between: Pandra Venkateswarulu … Appellant. And: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.345 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the order of dismissal dated 18-01-2006 passed in O.A.A.No.189 of 2000 filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124A and 125 of the Railways Act seeking to award compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the appellant. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the application. 3. The claim of the applicant in brief is as follows: On 07-08-2000, he boarded a general compartment in train No.7405 Tirupathi–Hyderabad Krishna Express at Renigunta for going to Vijayawada and while the train was halting at Vijayawada Railway Station, at about 1.50 P.M., he slipped and fell down from the train and then went under the wheels of the train, as a result of which, his left leg was cut and separated below his knee and further, he was a bonafide passenger of the train and hence he is entitled to the compensation claimed. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicant totally. It is also its case that the guard of the train did not report any such incident nor there was any alarm chain pulling and further if at all such incident took place, it must have been due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the applicant. Ultimately, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7405 Tirupati – Hyderabad Krishna Express travelling from Renigunta to Vijayawada on 07.08.2000? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vijayawada Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- as alleged? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 which happened to be relevant Xerox copy of Police Certificate dated 14.08.2000, Hospital Discharge Summary (original) issued by M.V.S. Accident Hospital, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Original copy of Wound Certificate, Medical Certificate, Prescription Card issued by the same hospital and Disability Certificate, respectively. 7. The Tribunal held all the issues against the applicant and hence aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. The applicant mainly relies upon his oral evidence and also the contents of Exs.A.1 to A.6 in order to uphold his claim. 9. It is to be mainly examined as to (1) Whether he placed good evidence to uphold his claim that he travelled by the train and then it is to be established by the respondent as to (2) Whether he was not a bonafide passenger of the train? and then it is to be considered (3) Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion and its order is tenable or not? 10. It is very important that no ticket was ceased from the applicant by the concerned railway police during the course of the investigation of the case and it seems that no efforts were made in that regard. 11. Ex.A.1 shows that the applicant travelled by the train. But as if it is only a certificate and hence it is not a public document it cannot be taken into consideration. Further, surprisingly no F.I.R. and inquest report were produced or caused to be produced before the Tribunal which is fatal. So it appears that no report was given to the concerned to put the law into motion. Further F.I.R, statement can be made use of only for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of its maker and not otherwise. Inquest report can be made use of only to ascertain the cause of injuries and also their nature and any objective findings made thereunder. Further even though medical records are filed before the Court, they are not sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicant. Further no railway record caused to be produced with regards to the accident which is also fatal. In the circumstances enumerated, there is no basis to say that he traveled by the train and hence he is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for. 12. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the tribunal. 13. In the result, this C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ____________________________________ Justice G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 08.02.2011 Dvs/Sp HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.345 OF 2006 Dated 8-2-2011