THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.529 of 2006 JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsel on record. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act against the order dated 23.02.2006 made in O.A.A.No.146 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad 3. The learned counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the specific grounds raised in paragraphs 2 to 9 of the ground of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that the learned Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondent would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. Heard the learned counsel on record. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the appellant, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal:- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad is to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 7. POINT NO:1- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as the applicant and respondent as shown in O.A.A.No.146 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter in short referred to as “The Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. 8. The applicant filed the claim petition for grant of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the personal injuries sustained resulting amputation of left leg from the middle of thigh which was said to be by a fall from Train No.8690 Express at Nidadavolu while traveling from Chirala to Vijayawada having a low value monthly season ticket on 27.03.2001. 9. The stand of the respondent is that train No.8690 express reached Nidadavolu Railway Station at 6.04 hrs and left at 6.06. hrs. The Station Master Bapatla’s version is that a male person aged 25 was found lying at KM No.374/36-34 near railway over bridge between Nidubrolu, whose left leg was cut and wounded. The Station Master received the information from one Pedawadu at 8.30 hrs. It is also stated that the applicant is not a bonafide passenger since he was traveling with low value season ticket. Unless he must be a bonafide passenger and the accidental fall was an untoward incident, the claim is not maintainable. The circumstances reveal that the incident was due to criminal act which disentitles from claiming compensation. 10. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.8690 express traveling from Chirala to Vijayawada on 27.03.2001 on a valid season ticket No.590907? (2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Nidubrolu over bridge? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled toclaim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged incident? (4) To what relief? 11. The learned Tribunal had been appreciated the evidence of A.W.1, R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and ultimately, findings had been recorded. 12. This Court had thoroughly gone through the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal at paragraph Nos.4 to 7 and is satisfied that on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal recorded the appropriate findings and the said findings need not be disturbed. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby confirmed. 13. POINT NO:2:- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: 08.07.2010 bud