PARTHA SARTHY, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties

2. The instant appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the order dated 9.4.2014 passed in Case no. OA 00200 of 2005 by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna whereby the petition of claim filed by the injured appellant was rejected.

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that the appellant on 28.1.2005 was travelling from Patna Junction to Teka Bigha Railway Station by 545 Down Danapur-Rajgir passenger train. He was holding a valid train ticket. While getting down from the train at Teka Bigha Railway Station as a result of an accidental fall, the left leg and left forearm of the appellant came under the wheels of the train and he was seriously injured. Part of his left leg and left forearm of the appellant had to be amputated. It is further case of the appellant that having sustained grievous injuries in the accident he was brought by the Railway officials in an unconscious state to the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna (PMCH, Patna) on the date of accident i.e. on 28.1.2005. He underwent treatment and was ultimately discharged on 13.2.2005. Being ignorant about the steps that he was required to take, the appellant states that on being discharged he went home. Subsequently, on 17.5.2005, he came and gave his statement to the police of the Pirbahore Police Station on duty in the PMCH, Patna and his fardbeyan recorded on 17.5.2005 has been brought on record in the claim case. The appellant filed the copy of his treatment chart as also discharge slip which he received on request from the PMCH, Patna. Along with his photograph and other documents, the appellant on 16.8.2005 filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs.

4. By judgment dated 9.4.2014 passed in Case no. OA 00200 of 2005, the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench was pleased to reject the claim case. It is against this order dated 9.4.2014 that the instant appeal has been preferred.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was a bonafide passenger who met with an accident on 28.1.2005 leading to grievous injuries. In his statement on affidavit, the appellant having described himself to be a bonafide passenger, the requirement as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so far as the appellant is concerned, has been discharged and it was now for the respondent-railways to prove the case otherwise. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi [2018(2) PLJR 447(SC), Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others [2008 ACJ 1895] and Union of India Vs. Pulluswamy Karupuswamy [2009 ACJ 280]. It is submitted by learned counsel that delay cannot be a ground for rejection of claim of the appellant. The learned Member erred in not considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicantappellant. As such, it is prayed that the order impugned be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

6. The instant appeal is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Railways. It is submitted that the injured applicant, not having produced any ticket, was a tresspasser. There is no justification for his complaint/statement having been given to the police three months after his discharge from the hospital. The medical certificate of the PMCH is neither signed nor stamped nor does it state as to where and when the injury took place. It is finally submitted that explanation to section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 states that a passenger includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling. It is thus submitted that the learned Tribunal having rightly considered the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties had rightly rejected the claim case filed b