Miscellaneous Appeal No. 964 of 2009 · High Court

1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.314 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was granted to the applicant 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

18.08.2002 while the respondent was travelling by a passenger train No.473 from Eluru to Tadepalligudem with a valid ticket bearing No.54187, he accidentally fell from the train and received injuries and thus claimed a compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending that the accident does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c)(2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) because on that day when the train was starting, one boy from the 3rd compartment suddenly jumped on to the platform and had fallen on the track and his both his legs were injured. Then the train was stopped and the injured was pulled out and was rendered first aid. The appellant further denied that the respondent was a bonafide passenger 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? ii. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and entitled to claim Rs.4.00 lakhs? iii. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the injured/applicant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the appellant/Railways, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. The Tribunal examined the Sub-Inspector of Police as C.W.1. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- to the applicant as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within thirty days 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 (Railways) contended that there is evidence on record which would go to show that the applicant jumped from the moving train which would come within the meaning of self infliction of injuries and therefore the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant. He further contended that the injured / applicant was not a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train and prayed to set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the evidence adduced by the applicant as well as the Guard of the train would clearly go to show that the applicant had fallen accidentally from the running train and sustained injuries and that the ticket number has been clearly mentioned in the FIR itself and that is not shown to be false and incorrect and hence he prays to dismiss the appeal.

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. 11 The initial burden is on the applicant to show that he was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. The evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that he purchased a ticket and boarded the train and while the train was moving, he accidentally fell down due to jerks and sustained injuries. The Guard of the train saw the applicant falling down from the train and immediately got stopped the train and the applicant was taken to the platform of the station. Though in the initial investigation, the Guard has stated that the injured/applicant jumped from the train, but during the course of trial, when he was examined as R.W.1 he stated categorically that the injured had fallen from the running train accidentally.

So from the evidence on record, it is clear that it is not a case of jumping of applicant from the running train. Therefore, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Act. 12 With regard to the factum of bonafide passenger is concerned, no doubt, the applicant has not produced any ticket. But his evidence is very clear that he purchased a ticket and boarded the train. Practically the evidence of A.W.1 remained unchallenged. Further more, the police during the course of investigation, must have seized the ticket from the applicant. That is the reason why police mentioned the ticket number in the FIR, which the applicant had purchased and was travelling in the train. The ticket number as per the investigation done by the police is not shown to be incorrect or invalid ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and that order needs no interference. 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. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J.

08.09.2011 Kvsn