The duty of railway authorities to ensure passenger safety and the interpretation of 'accident' under Section 82-A(1) were central to the court's decision.

( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28. 4. 1995 passed by the Railway Claims tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O. A. No. 85 of 1992 dismissing the application filed by him.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the applicant who filed the application for compensation on account of the accident. Once his application was dismissed as not maintainable then the applicant approached this court. [see 1994 ACJ 1151 (Karnataka)]. He succeeded. Again the Tribunal has held that the application is not maintainable.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the applicant that on 17. 2. 1992 at about 6. 45 p. m. when he was about to board the Bangalore-Hyderabad express to go to Raichur in Bangalore cantonment Railway Station, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work of Bangalore- jolarpet railway line suddenly fell upon the train and in turn fell upon the applicant causing grievous injuries to him and also to the co-passenger Gajendra. The applicant sustained the fracture of both tibia and fibula of the right leg on the upper 2/3 and l/2 of femur. As such, he claimed the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The defence taken by the respondent is that there was no accident to the train at the Bangalore cantonment Railway Station. It is also contended that the applicant was ticket- less traveller and found travelling on the footboard negligently stretching his legs outside. It is also stated that on account of stretching his legs outside, he was injured when a ladder trolley came in contact with his legs between Bangalore Cantonment and Bangalore East Stations. Therefore, for (he act of the negligence of the appellant, he is not entitled for any compensation,

( 4 ) THE Tribunal has framed three issues, namely: (1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger on the train in question? (2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries as claimed in the application and if so, what is the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the applicant and what compensation, if any, he is entitled to? (3) Whether the applicant actually lost any luggage/personal effects, etc. , in the accident as claimed in the application and if so, of what value?

( 5 ) THE Tribunal has recorded the evidence of some witnesses, namely, AWs 1 to 4 including the applicant and for the respondents RWs 1 to 4.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal relying upon the evidence of RWs 1 to 4 has held that there was no accident and as such, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation.

( 7 ) MR. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent has not taken pains to produce the relevant documents although it is admitted in the cross-examination. According to him, withholding of the documents has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that the respondent authority has not prosecuted and has not taken any action against the appellant. Hence the contention that he was a ticketless traveller has to be negatived. On the other hand, mr. Sanjay Gowda for Mr. N. S. Srini- vasan, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and also relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, 1984 ACJ 719 (SC ). According to Mr. Gowda, unless there is accident to the train and consequence of which is the result of injury, the claim is not maintainable. It is quite interesting to note that the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the same decision. Now in this decision it is laid down as follows:"that the 'accident' envisioned by the first part of section 82-A (1) is an accident 'to the train' or 'a part of the train' is self-evident. The section speaks of an accident by reason of either (1) collision or (2) derailment or (3) other accident to a train. There is therefore no room for any ambiguity on that score. "

( 8 ) IN the case on hand, the first two are ruled out as there is no collision or derailment. Now it is to be seen whether it can be brought under oth