2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 92

रेल दावा अ(cid:876)धकरण, नागपुर पीठ, नागपुर BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR QUORAM: SHRI SYED NISHAT ALI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/RCT/NGP CASE NO.: OA (IIU)/NGP/57/2024 Date of filing - 26.04.2024. Date of Judgement - 29.01.2025.

APPLICANT: 1. Rahul s/o Samson Shinde Age- 41 years, Occu. – Nil. R/o Sahakar Bank Colony, Near Railway Station, Jalna-431203.

V/s RESPONDENT: Union of India, South Central Railway, through its General Manager Secunderabad.

VALUE OF CLAIM: RS. 9,60,000/-

Applicant by Adv. D.S.Lambat Respondent by Adv. N.Ramteke JUDGEMENT

1) The applicant has filed this claim application seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him during the alleged train journey under Section 16 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987.

2) It is the case of applicant that on 29.04.2023 he was travelling from Aurangabad to Jalna for which he had purchased a valid railway journey ticket and boarded in Secunderbad Express train no. 17001 from Aurangabad Rly. Stn. When the said train entered at Jalna Rly. Stn. at Km no. 175/3-2 the applicant stood near the door of the compartment of the train for alighting at Jalna Rly. Stn. but at that time there was a sudden jerk to the said train due to which his hands and legs were slipped off from the handle of the compartment of the train and he untowardly and accidentally fell down from the said running train because of this the applicant’s hands and legs came under the wheel of the said running train and he was seriously injured and fell unconscious. Later, the applicant was brought to Govt. Hospital, Jalna with the help of Railway Police. Thereafter, he was immediately shifted to Kalawati Super-Specialty Hospital, Jalna for his medical treatment and where his Right Leg and Left Hand were amputated. Applicant has lost his right leg and left hand and he has claimed compensation.

3) Upon receipt of notice Respondent railway filed its written statement and denied its liability. Respondent denied the bonafide passenger status of the applicant and submitted that no journey ticket was found in possession of the injured/applicant during the course of investigation and the ticket which is filed by the applicant on record is not the original ticket but a photograph sent via Whatsapp by the applicant’s wife and further submitted that applicant needs to be put into strict proof regarding the travel by the alleged train. Respondent also denied the untoward incident and further submitted that there was no jerk or ACP in the alleged train during its run between Aurangabad to Jalna Rly. Stn. and alleged incident happened due to his own acts and conducts which disentitles applicant to claim compensation.

From the pleadings of the both the parties following issues were framed:-

1. Whether applicant was a bona fide passenger of the alleged train on the relevant day, with valid journey ticket?

2. Whether the applicant proves that on the relevant day he sustained injuries in the train in an untoward incident in terms of section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. What order? What relief?

4) The applicant no.1 Rahul s/o Samson Shinde was examined as AW-1 and Smt. Varsha w/o Rahul Shinde (Wife of Applicant no.1) was examined as AW-2 and documents Exh.A-1 to A-23 were marked on behalf of applicant. No witness was examined from the side of the respondent- railways. The respondent railway placed on record Statutory Investigation Report along with a number of documents as prepared during the course of such enquiry.

5) I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and carefully perused entire material placed on record. My findings on the issues involved are as under: ISSUE No.1:

6) Applicant has claimed to have travelled by Secunderabad Express from Aurangabad to Jalna Rly. Stn. and has filed on record a certified copy of his ticket for his alleged journey, whereas Respondent has denied bonafide passenger status of the applicant and submitted that during the preparation of Spot Panchnama (Exh.A-15) no railway ticket or any other valuable article was found from the spot of incident. However, Applicant has proved on record ticket, Exh.A-1, for Mail/Express train Ex.-Aurangabad to Jalna bearing no. 10603350 for one adult person and on oath he has deposed that he was travelling on the said ticket. Applicant has also led the evidence of AW-2 (wife of the AW-1) who also in her affidavit and her deposition stated that the on the day of incident it was raining heavily so she insisted the injured/applicant to come by Railway and hence as a proof AW-1 sent ticket on her whatsapp. Respondent has failed to extract anything in its favour during cross examination. Further during DRM enquiry, the snapshot photo of railway ticket produced by the applicant alongwith the present claim, was verified and found genuine. Respondent has not produced any documentary or other evidence to prove that the ticket filed by applicant was forged or bogus and he was not a bona fide passenger. Nothing contrary has been shown in this regard on behalf of the respondent railway. Respondents have not raised any objection to the veracity of ticket. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and in the light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi v/s Union of India, I feel fair to accept contentions of applicant about travel on a ticket, as such, the applicant was a bonafide passenger in Secunderabad Express train no. 17001. Thus, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of applicant and against Respondent.

ISSUE No. 2

7) So far as the factum of occurrence of untoward incident is concerned, the memo (Exh.A-2) was issued by Dy. Station Manager/Jalna Rly. Stn. to RPF & GRP/Jalna on 29.04.2023 at 22.25 hrs. wherein it is mentioned that as per the Loco Pilot of 17661 on walkie-talkie that one injured male person was lying beside the track at Km no. 175/3-2 J-DIQ end and the said person came on the track so the train stopped.

7.1 The applicant AW-1 appeared before the Tribunal and deposed on oath and filed his affidavit where he himself has stated that on 29.04.2023 due to heavy rains the wife of the applicant told him to come by train to Jalna so he purchased the ticket from Aurangabad station upto Jalna and boarded in 17001 Secunderabad Express. When he was travelling he sent the photo of his original journey ticket to his wife’s mobile. When his train reached at Jalna station he stood near the door of the train for alighting purpose but at that time there was sudden jerk to the train due to which his hand and legs slipped from the handle of the train and he fell down from the running train and was seriously injured.

7.2 In Written Statement, Respondent argued that there is no eye witness as to how the applicant had fallen from the train and got injured and hence it cannot be termed as an untoward incident. However, Respondent argued that the applicant was standing near the door of the compartment of the alleged train which corroborates with the contention of the applicant in the claim application. So, in a disguised manner railway admitted the travelling of the applicant in the alleged train. The applicant has proved railway ticket and during cross examination it has come that applicant was travelling by standing at the door of the coach. Though that is not permissible but that would not be in itself sufficient to push this case in the exceptions of Section

124 (A) of Railways Act as argued by the Respondent.

7.3 There is no direct evidence about accidental fall but circumstantial evidence and statement of applicant on oath would lead to a conclusion that applicant is accidentally fell down from the running train and respondent has failed to prove on record that said fall was due to any criminal negligence on part of applicant. So, this case would come within the ambit of untoward incident.

7.4 In the instant case the injured has been proved to be a bona fide passenger of train. Thus, based on above facts and other evidences placed on record including circumstantial evidence, it is clearly established that the accidental fall of applicant was an ‘untoward incident’ resulting into injury.

8) Thus, on collating all the relevant facts as brought above, evidences on records and attendant circumstances proved that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and had accidentally fell down from the train and got injured in the above incident. Keeping in view of the above and the documentary evidence placed on record, it is concluded that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and he was travelling in the alleged train and accidentally fell down from the train and sustained injuries in an untoward incident. In the circumstances explained above and keeping in view the evidences available on record, the issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the applicant.

9) In view of the above it can be concluded that the applicant was a bonafide passenger under Section 124 (A) of Railway Act 1989 and the incident is well covered under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act as an untoward incident. Accordingly, the issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the applicant.

10) The applicant has proved on record Injury certificate (Exh.A-4), Medical Injury Certificate (Exh.A-5), Discharge Summary card (Exh.A-7 to Exh.A-10), Disability certificate (Exh.A-11) & Photograph (Exh.A-22) and applicant has suffered amputation of Left hand from 6 inch below Shoulder joint and amputation of Ankle of Right Leg and fracture in Left Tibia bone.

The said injuries have been suffered by applicant during course of incident narrated above. So, applicant is entitled to compensation for said injuries as under:

Injuries	Schedule	Compensation Amount
Amputation of Left hand from 6 inch below Shoulder joint	2 of Part III	Rs. 6,40,000 /-
Amputation of Right Leg below knee with stump exceeding 5 inch	22 of Part III Rs. 3,20,000 /-

However, there is an upper limit to grant compensation under part III of Schedule of Compensation Rule to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs only). So keeping in view facts and circumstances and to observe the maximum ceiling limit, amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs only) is granted to the applicant.

ISSUE No. 3

3. What relief? What order?

11) In view of my findings on issue No. 1 and 2, I hold that the applicant was a bonafide passenger for his journey on the date of the incident and he had had sustained injuries in an untoward incident during the course of his journey for which the applicant is entitled to get the statutory compensation for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs only) as discussed above.