CMAMP No.653 of 2007 was filed to vacate the interim order dated 26.2.2007 made in CMAMP No.285 of 2007 in CMA No.151 of 2007. When the application is taken up for hearing, the counsel on record made a request for disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is being disposed of finally.

2. Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant-Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, had pointed out that the incident was not reported at all and the same had not seen the light for about six months and the said delay had not been explained. The counsel also pointed out to Exs.A6 and A7 and would maintain that both these documents are contradictory. The counsel also would maintain that in the light of the evidence available on record, it is doubtful whether respondent-applicant had taken treatment either in private hospital or in Government hospital. The counsel also would further point out that even if the episode of the respondent-applicant to be taken as true, even as per the schedule this would fall under entry No.28 at the best and not entry No.22 and hence at any rate the quantum of compensation fixed is on the higher side. The counsel also further pointed out that though the Railway Claims Tribunal may follow its own procedure, it would be just and convenient if the list of witnesses and list of documents are shown by way of appendix of evidence atleast at the end of the order and since the same is not being shown, the parties are put to inconvenience.

3. Per contra, Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent-applicant would maintain that the mere delay pointed out would not seriously alter the situation since none of the facts are in dispute and even otherwise though clear evidence was let in by the respondent-applicant, no evidence had been placed by the appellant-Railways and in the light of the same, the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal to be confirmed. The counsel also pointed out that entry No.22 or item No.22 had been correctly applied and this was done by the Railway Claims Tribunal not only being guided by the certificates placed before the Tribunal concerned, but also by seeing the injured and unless otherwise contrary is established, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal concerned cannot be said to be on higher side.

4. Heard the counsel on record.

5. The appellant herein is the respondent in OAA No.28 of 2004 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, hereinafter in short referred to as Tribunal for the purpose of convenience, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. The respondent herein as applicant filed the said application under Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall. It is his specific case that on 30.5.2003 he traveled with journey ticket bearing No.42194877 from Madurai to Nellore and boarded train No.6093 Chennai-Lucknow Express at Chennai Railway Station and when the train reached Nellore Railway Station at 8.45 AM on 31.5.2003 and when the injured applicant came to the door with a view to get down, due to sudden jerk of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train and sustained serious injuries.

6. The appellant herein resisted the said claim by filing a written statement and denying the very incident itself on the ground that no untoward incident had been reported by the Guard of the train on 31.5.2003 and though the alleged incident had taken place on 31.5.2003, the statement of applicant was recorded on 19.12.2003. It was also pleaded that they had submitted that the injured a