( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in o. A. A. No. 60 of 1998 dated 10-11 -1998, the union of India represented by its General manager, South Central Railway, secunderabad, filed this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1987.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT herein is the claimant who filed the said claim application on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the said claim application.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the applicant that on 3-6-1993 with a view to go to Secunderabad from Palasa, for contract coolie work, he along with his mother and other members went to Palasa Railway Station, which is nearest to their native village, Ganguvada and purchased tickets. All of them boarded the train No. 2119 Bhubaneshwar- secunderabad Konark Express in a general compartment. As there was heavy rush, the applicant and his mother was standing in the compartment near the door holding the edge of shelf meant for luggage. Meanwhile, the train started with a jerk and due to that impact, he was thrown out of the compartment and fell down between the compartment and the edge of the platform, as a result of which his both hands were crushed, cut and separated by the moving train and he went unconscious due to heavy bleeding. Immediately, the applicant was shifted to government Hospital, Palasa by Railway police and from there he was shifted to s. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur for better treatment and subsequently he was treated by the Government Hospital, srikakulam. He submits that the nature of the injuries sustained by him is traumatic amputation of both hands up to elbow and thereby he sustained permanent disability. Accordingly, he claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation.

( 4 ) AS against the said contention the railways filed a written statement stating that the incident took place on 3-6-1993 and as such the same does not attract the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 as contended by the applicant and therefore, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Without admitting the contentions of the applicant the railways stated that there was no scope for the applicant alone falling from the train since according to the applicant, himself and his mother was standing in the compartment nearthe door holding edge of the shelf meant for luggage. Therefore, if the applicant s statement were to be true, both himself and his mother would have fallen from the train. Even assuming that the incident occurred due to the fall from the said train the same was due to the negligence and carelessness of the applicant on account of standing at the door step, which is totally prohibited. Hence, no negligence can be attributed to the [ailways. Therefore, the allegations of the applicant are incorrect and untrue and the applicant is not entitled for any compensation.

( 5 ) BASED on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicant is a bona fide passenger? (2) Whether the alleged accidental fall of the applicant is not an untoward incident? (3) What is the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the applicant? (4) To what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to? (5) To what relief?

( 6 ) IT is pertinent to note that the said claim application was filed with delay. To condone the said delay an application in I. A. No. 41 of 1998 was filed under Section 17 (2) of the railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section (sic. Rule) 44 of the Railway Claims procedure Rules, 1989, wherein a counter has been filed by the railway administration. The tribunal allowed the said application by order dated 17-4-1998 and the said order has become final. Therefore, it is not open for the railway administration to contend that the delayed claim petition filed by the applicant is unsustainable.

( 7 ) THE applicant, A. Dilleswara Rao, examined himself as P. W. 1 and stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document