Miscellaneous Appeal No. 753 of 2009 · High Court

1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.249 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 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

25.04.2006 at about 1.30 PM the applicant came to Nellore Railway station and purchased a journey ticket bearing No.11584207 for Rs.27/- to go to Vendodu. The train reached Vendodu railway station at about 3.30 PM and when the applicant tried to get down from the train, the train started suddenly and as there was heavy rush on the platform the applicant fell down between the train and platform at Vendodu railway station. As a result of which, the applicant sustained grievous injuries to right leg, left leg and right hand and also received multiple injuries all over the body. Thereafter he was sent for treatment to Government Hospital, Gudur by the railway staff and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital Tirupathi where his right leg was amputated up to thigh level. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that on 25.04.2006, the on duty Pointsman by name Sri Brahmaiah and Safaiwala by name Smt.

Hymavathi who were working under the control of SS/Vendodu reported that when they were on duty at Vendodu Railway Station they noticed one person falling from the train No.7479 express on road No.1 after starting Vendodu Railway station at the end of the platform No.1 towards NDZ side at about 15.30 hours and the train left the station. After seeing the incident they informed the same to on duty SS/VDD. Therefore, the respondent contended that it is clear that the applicant while trying to get down from the moving train sustained injuries which amounts self inflicted injury and the same is one of the exceptions under section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train to Vendodu on from Nellore travelling No.7479 Express 25.04.2006? ii.

Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of the train accident? iii. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial the injured was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the appellant/Railways R.Ws.1 an 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicant as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of order failing which the applicant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid?

8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the respondent/injured and therefore the applicant is not entitled to the compensation and that the injured was not a bonafide passenger to travel in a passenger train and prayed to set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel respondent/applicant contended that there is no evidence from the side of the Railway Administration to show that there is negligence on the part of the deceased and hence the respondent/applicant is entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death or bodily injury the claimant has to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the injured was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train.

If these two requirements are proved or established then the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to prove that there was no untoward incident happened and that the injured was not a bonafide passenger. 11 There is no dispute that the respondent sustained the injuries in an untoward incident. Though it is disputed that the injured was a bonafide passenger, the applicant filed Ex.A.4 original ticket to show that he was a bonafide passenger. The ticket produced by the applicant is not shown to be incorrect or not valid ticket. Therefore, the injured was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 12 The defence of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration under the Act. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the categories mentioned in the said proviso.