THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A No.85 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against an order made in O.A.A.No.75 of 2000 dated 24.09.2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereby the application filed by the respondent herein claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by her i.e., amputation of both the legs, was allowed. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in the above O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. It appears the applicant filed the above claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining grievous injuries in an untoward incident of accidentally fallen from Train No.2711 Express while she was travelling in the said train from Ongole to Nellore on 15.09.1999. It is stated that both of her legs were amputated at thigh level. She lost her ticket in the accident. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments made by the applicant and pleaded that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged fall of the applicant from the train, except herself and her husband, whose statements were recorded only after two days after the accident. It was further denied hat she fell down from the train. However, it was admitted that the train arrived at Ongole Station at 9.20 hours and left at 9.22 hours and there was no alarm chain pulling nor any complaint was given by the passengers about the alleged accident. It was admitted that the Station Superintendent, Ongole, on receiving information from one Venkatraju that his sister-in-law fell down from 2711 Express on Platform No.3, sent a message to all the concerned. It is further stated that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger of 2711 Express. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.2711 Express travelling from Ongole to Nellore on 15.09.1999? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Ongole Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief?” In support of her case, the applicant filed an affidavit and got marked documents Exs.A.1 to A.7. As against this evidence, the respondent filed the affidavit of one B.V.S.Sharma, Chief Guard of Train No.2711, dated 15.09.1999 to the effect that he did not notice any untoward incident nor anybody informed him about the accident. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant was a bonafide passenger and she sustained injuries on account of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Ongole Railway Station, and accordingly, awarded Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there was inconsistency in the statements made by the respondent/applicant. Apart from that, the applicant was not a bonafide passenger since she has not produced any ticket. Further, the applicant herself was negligent since she was standing at the door when the train was just to leave and had fallen down. Therefore, it must be deemed that it is her own negligence, which has contributed for the accident. Apart from that she was not a bonafide passenger and the accident cannot be said to be untoward incident. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant supported the impugned order and stated that absolutely no evidence was let in by the appellant except examining one guard of the train, who stated that he had not noticed any untoward incident though the train passed from Ongole Station. Here it may be necessary to notice that immediately after the train passed the platform one Venkatraju informed the Station Master that an accident took place and immediately a message was sent to all the persons and inquest was conducted. The accident took place on the railway platform of Ongole Station and it is not unusual in which the respondent injured person narrated the incident. According to the applicant, the train was stopped. Her husband, who came to see her, went to get water and she was just waiting at the door for her husband. At that time, the train moved with a jerk, she had fallen down, went under the wheels and lost her both legs in the accident. The Tribunal recorded its finding as under: “ISSUE No.1 7. The applicant has affirmed in her evidence that in order to visit her parents’ house at Nellore, she along with her husband and relative Venkataraju, went to Ongole Railway Station on 15.09.1999 and that her husband gone to the ticket counter to get the ticket for her, and in the meanwhile she went to platform No.3 and there was heavy crowd in the compartment. She boarded the compartment and standing at the door way and looking for her husband who went to fetch water for her. At that time the train moved with sudden jerk and she accidentally slipped and fell down from the moving train and went under the wheels and her both legs were cut upto the thigh. She further stated that she lost her ticket in the accident. 8. The evidence of the applicant discloses that she lost her ticket in the accident. The case of the Respondent is that one passenger by name Golla Venkataraju informed the Station Superintendent that his sister-in-law fell down from 2711 Express on platform No.3, on that he sent a message to the SI, Govt. Railway Police, Ongole and Divisional Medical Officer, Ongole for necessary action. The incident of falling from the train at the railway station is not disputed. The police also entered the message in their General Diary. The Extract of the General Diary is Ex.A4. 9. It is contended by the Respondent that the applicant has not produced the ticket. It is explained by the applicant that the ticket was lost in the accident. The evidence of the applicant cannot be disbelieved merely because the ticket was not produced. It is likely that in such ghastly incident the ticket would have been lost and it is not retrieved. Further, in view of Sec.55 of Railways Act, there is prohibition to travel in the train without ticket. Therefore, we find this issue in favour of the applicant. ISSUE No.2 10. The Respondent lead the evidence that the Guard of the Train No.2711 Express has not noticed the incident of falling from the train nor it was brought to his notice by anybody about the accident, as such it is to be presumed that no untoward incident has taken place. But the fact remains that the Station Supdt., on being informed by G.Venkataraju that the applicant has fallen down from the train, he sent a message to all concerned and the injured was referred to the Hospital. The earliest version immediately after the incident, goes to show that the applicant has fallen down from the train. The wound certificate, Ex.A.7 shows that the Applicant sustained injuries in an alleged untoward accident by express train at Ongole railway station. The central diary extract made by the Police also shows that the applicant has fallen down from 2711 express. In view of the recorded evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the applicant has fallen down from the train accidentally and her both legs were cut due to run over by the wheels of the train. The applicant has established that an untoward incident has taken place and that she is the victim of such untoward incident. We find this issue in favour of the applicant. ISSUE No.3 11. The applicant has claimed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries. She stated that her both legs were cut. Her statement was recorded by the Police, Ex.A.2. She stated that her both legs were cut at thigh level. She stated that her both legs were amputated above the middle of the thigh. She also filed her photographs, Ex.A.5, showing the amputation of both legs. The Wound Certificate, Ex.A.7, which was recorded immediately after the accident, shows that traumatic amputation of both lower limbs at the level of middle of the thigh. Clause 18 of Part III of the Schedule of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 prescribes Rs.2,80,000/- for amputation below hip with stump not exceeding 5” in length measured from hip of great trenchanter but not beyond middle thigh. Since the applicant’s both legs were amputated above the middle of thigh, she is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.4 lakhs in total. Therefore, we award an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation, with interest @6% p.a. from the date of this application, till realization. ISSUE No.4 12. In view of the findings given in the above issues, the application is allowed on contest, awarding a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest @6% p.a. from the date of this application till realization. Out of the said amount, the Applicant is permitted to withdraw Rs.20,000/- and accrued interest, and the balance amount of Rs.3,80,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank , initially for a period of 3 years, renewable from time to time, with a provision to withdraw monthly interest towards her maintenance. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach this Tribunal in case of exigencies and necessities by filing an appropriate petition for release of required amount, in view of the Apex Court’s decision in case of General Manager, K.S.R.T.C, Trivandrum vs.Susamma Thomas & others, reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1631. The fixed deposit shall not be subject to any encumbrance.” In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, particularly, in view of the fact that no rebuttal evidence was let in by the railway authorities whatsoever, and the statement of the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has been appreciated by the Tribunal in granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, it cannot be said that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger nor it can be said that the nature in which accident has taken place was not an untoward accident of accidentally fallen from the train at Ongole Station. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 23.07.2010 va