THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.No.2434 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard Sri T.S.Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant-respondent and Sri S. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel representing the respondent-appellant. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, being aggrieved of the order dated 18.11.2002 made in O.A.A.No.175 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 3. The respondent herein is the applicant and the appellant herein is the respondent in the aforesaid O.A.A. 4. The respondent-Applicant filed the said application seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her at Vijayawada Railway Station on the intervening night of 2/3.2.1998 while she was on her way to Ongole from Vijayawada. The Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in short referred to as “The Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent-applicant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been preferred by the appellant/respondent. 5. Sri T.S. Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant/respondent, had taken this Court through the grounds of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the light of the same, the appeal has to be allowed. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondent/applicant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Tribunal and would maintain that in the light of the convincing findings recorded by the Tribunal, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 7. It is the case of the respondent/applicant that she along with her husband after attending a reception at Vijayawada reached Railway Station at about 00.45 hours to go to Ongole by any express train since her husband was working there (at Ongole), purchased two express train tickets bearing Nos.411337 and 411338. It is further stated that on enquiry with the concerned Railway officials, she was informed that one express train bound towards Ongole would arrive at platform No.5 at about 1.20 hours and so she along with her husband reached platform No.5, where the train was ready. While she was still at the entrance of the bogie, due to slushiness in the coach and on the platform, she slipped and received grievous injury on her right knee resulting in fracture and subjected to severe pain and inconvenience. She added that with great difficulty and with her husband’s assistance she managed to get into the train, performed the journey in the same train, got down at Ongole at 3.30 a.m. on 03.02.1998 and she was immediately rushed to the Government headquarters hospital for treatment. She also stated that she sustained a fracture on the right keen cap and pathaloctomy operation was done. She further stated that she was bedridden for more than 3 months, suffered severe bodily pain besides mental agony as a result of the injury sustained on the premises of Vijayawada Railway Station while boarding the train with proper journey tickets. She stated that she gave a written report to the Station House Officer, Ongole about the accident at Vijayawada railway station for transmission to Vijayawada for settling of any point of territorial jurisdiction, and she claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the untoward incident while traveling as a bonafide passenger from Vijayawada to Ongole. She claimed Rs.1 lakhs as compensation claiming that she had suffered complete disability, pain, mental agony and loss of social status in view of the infirmity in walking. 8. The appellant/respondent had stated that the claim was fabricated, false and that there is no basis that there was any untoward incident at Vijayawada Railway Station on the intervening night of 2/3.2.1998. The appellant stated that the respondent/applicant failed even to mention the name and number of the train and stated that there was no complaint either to the Station Superintendent, Vijayawada or to the Station Superintendent, Ongole regarding the incident. Further, the respondent claimed that the applicant had categorically stated that as platform No.5 was not clean she slipped and fell down and further that the Government Railway Police report mentioned that she slipped due to putting of the leg on a banana peel, as such it was not an untoward incident. The appellant/respondent put the respondent/applicant to strict proof regarding bonafide as a passenger. The appellant/respondent also submitted that no express train ticket No.411337 and 411338 were issued on the night of 2/3.2.1998 at Vijayawada to Ongole. Accordingly, the appellant/respondent pleaded that the respondent/applicant was not a bonafide passenger (since no tickets as claimed by her were issued) and that it was not an untoward incident and pleaded that the application be dismissed with costs. 9. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:- (1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train traveling from Vijayawada to Ongole on the intervening night of 2/3.2.1998 boarded at Vijayawada at 1.20 hrs.? (2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vijayawada? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of an untoward incident of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? (4) To what relief? 10. On behalf of the respondent-applicant, the following documents had been marked:- i) Complaint (Ex.A.1) ii) Out patient ticket (Ex.A.2) iii) Wound Certificate (Ex.A.3) iv) Essentiality Certificate (Ex.A.4) v) Medical Certificate (Ex.A.5) vi) X-Ray Plate (Ex.A.6) vii) Medical Certificate (Ex.A.7) 11. On behalf of the appellant/respondent, the following documents were marked:- i) Letter from SRP (Ex.R.1) ii) LTM register extract (Ex.R.2) iii) DTC extract (Ex.R3) iv) DTC extract dated 03.02.1998 (Ex.R.4) v) DTC extract dated 02.02.1998 (Ex.R.5) vi) DTC extract dated 03.02.1998 (Ex.R6) vii) DTC extract dated 02.02.1998 (Ex.R7) viii) DTC extract dated 03.02.1998 (Ex.R8) ix) DTC extract dated 02.02.1998 (Ex.R9) x) DTC extract dated 03.02.1998 (Ex.R.10) 12. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent-applicant is entitled to compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application. 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal:- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal 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? 14. POINT NO:1- The respective stands taken by the parties had already been referred to above. The applicant/respondent filed her affidavit stating that on the intervening night of 2/3.2.1998, the applicant and her husband after attending a reception at Vijayawada wanted to go to Ongole by any available express train since her husband had been working as a Judge at Ongole, and that they purchased two second class express train journey tickets. It is also stated that on enquiry with the concerned railway officials they were informed that one express train bound towards Ongole was on platform No.5 and that it might be Hyderabad-Tirupathy Rayalaseema express. At about, 1.20 hrs, her husband boarded the train first and she boarded the train later and as she was standing near the door due to heavy rush of passengers and as there was slushiness on the floor of the compartment suddenly she slipped and fell down accidentally on the platform due to jerk and the train was stopped immediately. As a result of this, she sustained severe injury on her right keen resulting in fracture, severe pain and inconvenience. She averred that immediately one Bhaskar Reddy of Vijayawada and some other passengers put her in the same compartment and the train moved immediately. She also mentioned that they learnt that there was no halt at Ongle railway station and that when the train halted at about 3.30 p.m. She and her husband got down with the assistance of the court staff of Ongole approached the Government Railway police and complained about the incident to the Station House Officer (GRP). She also mentioned that she was examined and her statement was recorded by the railway police. 15. In her affidavit she also explained about the treatment and the other details. She was cross-examined at length. 16. The affidavit of one B. Yogiram Singh, Deputy Station Superintendent, Vijayawada (R.W.1) was filed and he stated that on the night of 2/3.2.1998 he was on duty in the shift 21 hrs. to 7 hrs and that during his duty hours 3 express trains viz. train No.2616 GT express, 7429 Rayalaseema express and 9768 Jaipur express passed through Vijayawada and that he was present on the platform when the three trains passed and no untoward incident of any nature was reported to him. He also submitted that platform No.5 was clean and all the staff i.e., Saifaiwals etc., discharged their duties and no complaints were received. According to him, the platform was neat and clean. 17. This witness was also cross-examined. 18. The affidavit of one Ch. Lakshman Rao, Head Booking Clerk, Vijayawada was filed and he stated that on 2/3.2.1998, the opening and closing numbers of the tickets issued from Vijayawada to Ongole from various windows are 40323 to 40336, 40337 to 40426, 25310 to 25349 and 25350. He also mentioned that at west booking office of Vijayawada on the night of 2/3.2.1998 tickets issued from Vijayawada to Ongole were 16399 to 16413, 16414, 32048 and 32048 to 32069. According to his affidavit tickets, 411337 and 411338 were not issued from Vijayawada booking office to Ongole during the shift 21 hrs to 6 hrs. 19. This witness was also cross-examined. 20. The learned Tribunal recorded reasons in detail at paragraphs 14 to 25 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the respondent herein/applicant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. 21. In Balagoni Siva Prasad Vs., Union of India represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad[1], it was held that “In the above case also, the Apex Court rejected the contention of the Railways that there was no fault on their part and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board the running train and therefore, the railways are not liable for compensation. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It must be held that the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim on the ground that the appellant had fallen from the train due to his own negligence while boarding and therefore, the railways are not liable to pay compensation, in view of the exception contained in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. As held by the Apex Court in the above decision, the expression accidentally falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bonafide passenger i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process and in view of applicability of doctrine of strict liability in respect of claims arising under Section 124- A of the Act, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The respondent-Railways is therefore, held liable to pay the compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the mater is remitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of fixing the appropriate amount of compensation payable to the appellant.” 22. This Court had thoroughly gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal and is satisfied that there is no legal infirmity whatsoever warranting interference with such findings and therefore, the said findings are hereby confirmed. 23. POINT NO:2- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit and the same shall stand dismissed. Let the parties do bear their own costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA,J Dated: 01.07.2010 bud THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.No.2434 of 2004 DATED:01.07.2010 [1] 2008 (5) ALT 605