The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to establish whether an injured person found on railway premises is a bona fide passenger, and failure to do so makes the railway administration liable to pay adequate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in OA/II/u/92 of 2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. Heard Smt. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The claim of appellant/applicant before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act 1989 against the respondent Railway administration claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident and costs for the injuries suffered by the applicant in an alleged untoward incident. The claim of the appellant is that on 15.11.2014, the applicant went to Giddalur, and after completion of some work, on return journey he came to Giddalur Railway station, purchased a train ticket to Narasaraopet and boarded general compartment of train No.57623 Kacheguda-Guntur passenger. During the travel, when the train halted at Jaikrishnapuram Railway station, to attend natural call, he got down from the train and while re-boarding the train, the train started and, in that process, the applicant slipped and fell down from the train. His right leg was severely crushed, cut and separated at knee and his left food was also severely crushed, cut and separated at the ankle joint. Immediately he was taken by 108 Ambulance to Government General Hospital at Cumbum by the Railway station staff and railway police. Later, he was shifted to Tulsi Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he was treated as inpatient. The applicant claimed that he lost train ticket during the process of shifting him from the place of occurrence to the Hospital.

4. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application. It is admitted that the applicant was found in injured condition at Jaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station at about 21.15 hrs. on 15.11.2014 and that Railway officials immediately attended to him and made arrangements to take him to Government General Hospital, Cumbum by 108 ambulance. It is further stated that the claim on the grounds that when the Railway officials made enquiries with him, he did not produce any ticket to them and admitted that he travelled without ticket and also stated that the applicant was in intoxicated state at the time of incident.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the applicant(s) was a bonafide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident?

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief?

6. During course of the trial, the appellant/ applicant was examined as AW.1 and he relied upon original/certified copies of photo, previous journey ticket, station Superintendent’s Memo, SHO’s Memo, Police intimation, statement of injured, hospital records, Disability certificate and Aadhar card, which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. on behalf of the respondent, it only relied upon statutory investigation report-DRM report, which was marked as Ex.R1.

7. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating the case. She further submits that the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railway Act, to the present case. She submits that the tribunal grossl