IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1479 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D P.Venkataramaraju …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1479 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2005 in O.A.A.No.60 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondent in the appeal is the applicant, 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 the claim application stating that on 30.12.2000 he along with another person by name Y.Chandrasekhar went to Bhimavaram Railway Station in order to go to Vijayawada by boarding train No.106 Bhimavaram- Vijayawada passenger. They boarded general compartment after purchasing the tickets. When the train reached Kaikalur Railway Station, the applicant got down to drink water and again boarded the train, and while so, the train started moving on the platform and he slipped from the compartment accidentally and fell under the wheels of the train. The train was stopped and First Aid was given to the applicant and he was sent to Community Hospital, Kaikalur and later sent to University General Hospital, Vijayawada through RPC No.2080 on 30.10.2000, where he underwent treatment till 09.02.2001. His hipbone was dislocated and he had also sustained lacerated wound to the left hand. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per Guard of the train when the train moved to a distance of 40-50 meters on the Kaikalur platform, the passengers raised shouts informing that a passenger while travelling from off side had fallen and his left hand was cut. After rendering first aid, the applicant was sent to Government Hospital for treatment. Since it was negligent act amounting to self inflicted injury, the applicant is not entitled to compensation 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 travelling from Bhimavaram to Vijayawada on 30.12.2000? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Kaikalur Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2,80,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief.” 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passenger with a valid ticket and he sustained injuries in an untoward incident. Challenging the same, the Railways filed the present appeal. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/Railways contended that the gravity of the injuries sustained by the applicant are self inflicted injuries so, the railway administration is not liable to pay compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. 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 such person as the case may be was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. The question is whether the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident; or whether the amputation and injuries sustained by the applicant are in the nature of self inflicted injuries. It is not in dispute that the applicant travelled by train No.106 Bhimavaram to Vijayawada in general compartment by purchasing ticket Ex.A.1. At Kaikalur railway station, he got down from the train to drink water. While he was boarding the train, the train started from the platform, as a result he fell down from the compartment accidentally and his left hand was crushed and amputated and later sustained dislocation of hip and he also sustained lacerated injury to the left hand. The evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he accidentally fell from the train and sustained cut injury on the hand. The word ‘untoward incident’ is defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Act, If a person falls from the train accidentally, it is an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123 (c ) (2) of the Act. In view of the fact that the railway administration has taken one of the defences as provided under proviso to 124-A of the Act, the burden is on the railways to establish that the injuries sustained by the applicant are self-inflicted injuries. Self-inflicted injury can said to be a intentional act of harming oneself. In other words it is an deliberate self harm. Injurer wanted to take advantage of being injured. The injury is done to oneself, without the aid of another person. Intentionally means that it is done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects. No evidence whosoever was adduced to show that the applicant sustained the injuries by way of self-infliction. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the applicant sustained injuries and amputation of left hand by self-infliction is devoid of merits and untenable. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and that order needs no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL