THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1170 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 05-05-2006 in O.A.A No.194 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train was allowed granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- and directing the Respondent to pay the same within 60 days else interest at 6% p.a. shall accrue on the delayed payment from due date till realization. 2. Brief facts are that on 10-05-2001 at 11.30 hours while the applicant was boarding into Amaravathi express train No.7225 from platform No.4, he slipped and fell down on account of jerk, as a result, he sustained injuries to his left leg which was cut off. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the applicant was not in possession of valid ticket, that none reported about the untoward incident, that some travelling public informed that one male person was lying on platform No.1 with left leg cut, that immediately on duty Dy.SS sent message to GRP, Guntur and arranged some persons for sending the injured to hospital and at that time, the injured was in conscious and gave the details. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.7225 Amaravathi Express.? 2.Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train on the night of 10-05-2001? 3.Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4 laaakhs as prayed for? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of Railways, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger as he failed to produce ticket to show that he sustained injuries while travelling in a passenger train, that due to his negligence, he fell down from the train on the platform and sustained injuries and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the evidence of A.W.1 is clear that the applicant purchased a ticket, but during the course of incident, he lost the ticket, that the applicant falling from the running train and sustaining injuries in an untoward incident are not in dispute and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. 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 with a valid ticket. 11. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Railways that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in sustaining injuries cannot be accepted because that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the clauses as mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The applicant sustained injuries viz., amputation of left leg above the ankle in an untoward incident. 12. The second requirement is that the applicant must have been travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. The evidence of A.W.1 would go to show that he purchased a ticket to board the train, that due to sudden jerks, he fell down on the platform and as a result, his left leg was cut and subsequently it was amputated. When a person had fallen from the running train accidentally, there is possibility of missing of ticket at that point of time. Therefore, for that reason, it cannot be said that he was not a bona fide passenger. The initial burden stands on the applicant with regard to purchase of ticket and travelling in a passenger train stands discharged. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf of the Railways to show that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal after considering evidence rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 17-08-2011 Hsd