IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.189 OF 2008 Between : Elaka Maheshwar ... APPELLANT A N D Union of India. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.189 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 31.07.2006, in O.A.A.No.185 of 2002, 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.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the applicant, and the respondent in the appeal 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 claim application stating that on 17.03.2002 he boarded train No.7201 at Bonakalu Railway Station and sustained injuries in an untoward incident by accidental fall. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger inasmuch as the Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) allegedly taken by him did not bear any endorsement for break journey at Vijayawada; that it was not indicated as to how the fall was occurred; that the injury certificate furnished by the applicant does not bear any date; that Guard of Train No.7201, did not report any untoward incident nor he has seen the fall of any person; that an unknown injured person was found at Bonakalu Railway Station by the Station Superintendent and the same was informed to Government Railway Police for further action at 13:00 hours on 17.03.2002 almost five hours after departure of train No.7201 from Bonakalu; that the applicant has not travelled by the said train and the injuries sustained by him are not on account of any fall 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.7201 Golconda Express travelling from Tirupathi to Warangal on 16.03.2002? 2. Whether the Applicant is a victim of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Bonakalu Railway Station? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2.00 lakhs on account of sustained injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief.” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 and R2 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application holding that Ex.A.5 was issued by a private nursing home without any date and the person who issued Ex.A.5 was not examined. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present appeal. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the applicant was having Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) No.674079 issued on 16.03.2002 to travel from Tirupati to Warangal; that the applicant broke off the journey at Vijayawada and continued his journey to Warangal on the next day and therefore, he is a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that he sustained crush injury on the right hand and head injury and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that there was no endorsement on the ticket which was issued on 16.03.2002 regarding broke off journey; that the ticket is valid for that date only and therefore, no evidence was adduced by the applicant to show that he was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly dismissed the clam application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died or sustained injuries and secondly that he was a bona fide passenger of the train carrying passengers. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. With regard to bona fide passenger, the applicant produced Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) No.674079 issued on 16.03.2002 to travel from Tirupathi to Warangal. It is the specific case of A.W.1 that he went to Tirupathi to have Darshan of Lord Venkateswara and he started his return journey on 16.03.2002 by purchasing a ticket bearing No.674079 from Tirupathi to Warangal and boarded the train going towards Vijayawada. He got down at Vijayawada to break off journey and spent time at Vijayawada Railway Station and on the next date morning, he boarded train No.7201 Golconda Express to go to Warangal. At Bonakalu Railway Station, the applicant accidentally slipped and sustained grievous injuries on his head, hands, legs and back. Immediately after the incident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment. According to him Travelling Ticket Examiner issued ticket at Tirupathi Station itself. He admitted that he has not obtained endorsement about his broke off journey at Vijayawada Railway Station so as to proceed to Warangal on the next day. He filed Ex.A.1-Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) No.674079 issued on 16.03.2002 at Renigunta Railway Station which does not contain any signature of the Ticket Examiner. So also it does not contain any endorsement from the concerned Railway Officials at Vijayawada to permit him to break off his journey and travel on the next day. According to A.W.1, on 17.03.2002 at Bonakalu Railway Station after washing his face, he tried to board the train, but accidentally slipped, fell down and sustained injuries. He was unnoticed by the passengers of the train carrying passengers or any other person present in the Railway Station. He was first noticed at about 12:00 Noon and immediately he was shifted to Hospital. Furthermore, Ex.A.1 shows that it was taken at Renigunta Railway Station but not in Tirupathi as contended. Even assuming for a moment that he has taken Ex.A.1 ticket to travel from Tirupathi to Warangal, he has to undertake the journey on 16.03.2002 itself. There is no need or occasion for him to break off his journey at Vijayawada Railway Station till the next day morning. He did not give any explanation as to how he travelled from Tirupathi to Vijayawada. According to Railways, there was no train left at Tirupathi at 4:00 or 4:30 PM towards Vijayawada. It is the specific case of the applicant he boarded a train at 4:00 or 4:00 PM at Tirupathi. The applicant has not come to the Court with true facts. It is not the case of the applicant that after getting down at Vijayawada, he was forced to wait in the Station till next day as no train w as available to go to Warangal. From 17.03.2002 onwards he cannot be said to a bona fide passenger to travel in a train carrying passengers, because he did not obtain any endorsement from the concerned officials at Vijayawada Railway Station so as to break off his journey on 16.03.2002 and thereafter, he is entitled to resume his journey on 17.03.2002. So in the absence of such endorsement even assuming that Ex.A.1 is valid ticket, it would not authorize A.W.1 to undertake journey from Vijayawada to Warangal on 17.03.2002. Therefore, he is not bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. On this aspect, the Tribunal rightly gave a finding that he was not a bona fide passenger. 12. Coming to the incident proper, it is not in dispute that R.W.1 found the injured at 12:00 Noon at Bonkalu Railway Station and sent a message to the police. Police in-turn sent him to the hospital and admitted in the hospital, for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. But, however, he produced Ex.A.3 which would go to show that he sustained crush injury on the right hand. As per Ex.A.5 he sustained four injuries viz., 1) Crush injury on the right hand 2) Head injury 3) Multiple abrasions over the right knee 4) A grazed abrasion about 10 x 5 cm over the right back. Those injuries were unnoticed by the Government Hospital authorities, when he was admitted in District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar. Therefore, the applicant has not come to the Court with true and correct facts so as to claim damages. The applicant has not examined the Doctor, who examined and treated him to show the nature of injuries sustained by him and whether those injuries were possible while falling from a train accidentally. It is not a fit case to set aside the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 YVL