THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.266 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS SR.NO.18441 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2003 passed in O.A.A.No.314 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondent towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 22.05.2009 while the applicant was travelling by Train No.6046 navjeevan Express, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train near ‘A’ Cabin at Ramagundam Railway station and sustained severe injuries on the legs. His left leg was amputated below knee while undergoing treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Hence, the applicant filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement disputing the accident itself and further stated that the injuries sustained by the applicant are self inflicted injuries and they also denied that the applicant was a bonafide passenger and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger? ii. Whether the applicant received injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? iii. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4.00 lakhs as compensation? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition in part and awarded an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the applicant/respondent as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of order, failing which it shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. For not granting the total compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs as claimed in the O.A.A., the applicant filed the Cross Objections Sr.No.18441 of 2009. 7 Now the points for consideration are i. Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in trying to get down from the moving train and therefore for the lapses committed by the applicant, he is not entitled to claim compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. With regard to the Cross Objections, he contended that the Cross Objections are not maintainable inasmuch as if the applicant is aggrieved by the judgment, he should have filed a separate appeal and hence prayed to dismiss the Cross Objections preferred by the applicant. 9 On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the plea of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration and that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident and that he was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and that even without filing an appeal Cross Objections are maintainable to do substantial justice to the parties and therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross objections by granting the entire compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicant for the fracture to L4 Vertibra. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death or bodily injury, the applicant has to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased/injured was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established, then the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, its case has to fall under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 11 Insofar as the negligence on the part of the applicant is concerned, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever was adduced by the Railway Administration that their case falls under any one of the exceptions mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident, and that as it is also established that the applicant was a bonafide passenger, he is entitled to compensation. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal on that aspect need no interference. 12 With regard to the Cross Objections, the applicant has not filed appeal for not granting any compensation for fracture of L4 Vertibra. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that since fracture of spine is also a schedule injury, the applicant is entitled to compensation. As seen from the Railway Accidents & Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, fracture of spine of a person is a schedule injury. But as seen from the certificate issued by the doctor the applicant sustained only facture of L4 Vertibra. L4 Vertibra is a part of spine, but not a spine. The applicant ought to have examined the doctor who treated him to show that the Vertibra is a spine. It is only a part of spine. The schedule injury does not indicate for grant of compensation the fracture of L4 Vertibra. Hence the applicant is not entitled for compensation for that fracture separately. Hence the Cross objections are liable to be dismissed. 13 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit and the Cross Objections are also dismissed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.09.2011 Kvsn