IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1217 OF 2008 Between : Karlapudi Prembabu …APPELLANT A N D Union of India. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1217 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.16 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the applicant, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that, on 10.11.2000 while he was travelling by train No.424 passenger from Nidubrolu to Kadavakuduru and when the train reached Pandillapalli Railway Station at 8:30 AM, he had accidentally slipped and fell down, sustained injuries to the head and other parts of the body. His left hand was amputated. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent/ Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that there was no proof to show that the applicant travelled in the passenger train on that day; that as per the report of the Guard, there was no untoward incident had happened on 10.11.2000 and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.421 passenger travelling from Nidubrolu to Kadavakuduru on 10.11.2000? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train when the train crossed Pandillapalli Railway Station at about 8.30 a.m? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws. No.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the evidence of A.Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that the applicant sustained injuries to the head and other parts of the body and also his left hand was amputated; that they have categorically stated that they purchased ticket before boarding the train and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation as prayed for. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/railways contended that no untoward incident had happened on that day; that the Doctor, who treated the injured was not examined to show that such amputation can be possible falling from the running train; that the applicant has not produced the ticket to show that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, legal and correct. 11. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, he sustained the injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 12. According to A.W.1 on 10.11.2000 at 6:00 AM he along with his cousin went to Nidubrolu Railway Station and purchased a ticket in order to go to Kadvakudur Village, and while he was peeping from the door, he slipped and fell down and as a result he lost consciousness. Immediately after the incident, he was shifted to hospital by A.W.2 who is his cousin brother. In the Government Hospital, Chirala, the Doctor, who treated the applicant, did not send the hospital intimation to the Government Railway Police. If really, A.W.1 had sustained the injuries by falling from the running train, they would have informed the same to police. Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, it seems Chirala Police sent a Memo to GRP Police, but, no investigation was conducted by the Government Railway police, may be for the reason that A.W.1 might not have fallen from the running train. If really he had fallen from the running train at about 8:30 AM on 10.11.2000, it must have been noticed by several passengers because he was having a ticket to travel by train No.424 from Nidubrolu to Kadavakuduru Village. No incident of this nature had been reported to the Guard or the driver of the train or to the nearest Railway Station. The Doctor, who examined the applicant, is the best person to speak about the nature of injuries sustained by him and whether those injuries may be possible by falling from the running train. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Ex.A.4 is the O.P. ticket, Ex.A.5 is the Orthopedically Handicapped Certificate, Ex.A.6 is the case sheet and Ex.A.7 is the certificate issued by Private Doctor. All these documents do not show that those injures can be possible by falling from the running train. Prima facie, since the initial burden standing on the applicant that he sustained the injuries in an untoward incident is not proved by preponderance of probability, the question of compensation to the applicant does not arise. 13. Coming to the second aspect, whether the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train, admittedly A.Ws. 1 and 2 who said to have purchased a ticket and travelled in the passenger train have not produced the ticket. The reason given by A.W.1 is that he lost the ticket. But, the same cannot be accepted because there was no scope or possibility of loosing the ticket during the course of journey. The evidence of A.W.2 who is closely related to the applicant would go to show that some of the passengers also pulled the chain and in spite of that the train was not stopped. The statement of A.W.2 on this aspect cannot be accepted for the simple reason that had the passengers pulled the chain, definitely the train would have stopped. Further, if really A.W.1 had fallen from the train, certainly it would have been noticed by the Guard or driver of the train. So, the evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 does inspire confidence so as to act upon it. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly dismissed the claim application after recording reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBMER 13, 2011 YVL