C.M.No.8269-CII of 2010 and ::1:: FAO No.1640 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.8269-CII of 2010 and FAO No.1640 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.03.2010 Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi .. Petitioner Versus Rampal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Ashok Khichi, Advocate for the petitioner . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) C.M.No.8269-CII of 2010 For the reasons recorded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and the delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. FAO No.1640 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, awarding Rs.4 Lacs as compensation to the respondent who fell from the train and whose legs were crushed. The case set up by the respondent was that he was standing near the door of the train and due to stop and jerk movement of the train, he fell down and consequently, his legs got crushed under the wheels of the train. The case of the appellant was that the respondent was actually trying to de-board from a moving train and that is why the accident was caused. C.M.No.8269-CII of 2010 and ::2:: FAO No.1640 of 2010 On an appreciation of the facts and the evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to substantiate its case. Consequently, compensation 'as per Schedule' was awarded. Learned counsel has argued that as per the original version of the respondent himself the accident had taken place at Sabji Mandi Station but the same was later on improved during the case to incorporate the plea that the accident took place at Sadar Bazaar Station. This fact has rightly considered by the learned Tribunal as having emanated from error. Apart from this, had the accident taken place at Sabji Mandi Station, it would not have been difficult for the appellant to prove this fact but no evidence has been produced by the appellant in this regard. Learned counsel has further argued that present case being the First Appeal should be admitted. Even though normally the Courts would admit the First Appeal since the entire evidence has to be re- appraised, yet having gone through the record of the case, in my opinion, no fault can be found in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. Consequently, this apppeal is dismissed. Since this appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. March 31, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE