THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.67 of 2013 dated 04.04.2018.

2. Appellant is the applicant and Respondent is the respondent in O.A.II (U) No.67 of 2013.

3. It is stated in the application that the appellant-applicant went to his native place on his personal work and started return journey in the night hours on 09.03.2013, purchased a journey ticket for travelling from Kazipet to Mancherial and boarded Nagpur Passenger train at Kazipet. In the middle of the way, the applicant went to bathroom and when he was washing his face at the wash basin near the door of the train, the train had given jerks while changing the main line to loop line at Raghavapuram Railway Station, as a result the door hit the appellant-applicant due to which he was imbalanced and accidently fallen down from the running train near Raghavapuram Railway Station. The left leg of the appellant-applicant went under the running wheels and it was cut off on the spot. Appellant-Applicant has received crush injury on his right foot and also received other injuries, the train has left without noticing the incident. Appellant-applicant has sought help and contacted his relatives over cell phone. The Pointsman of Raghavapuram Railway Station noticed the injured applicant in the intervening night of 09^th/10^th March, 2013 and he was referred to Singareni Collieries Company Hospital, RG-1 Area, Godavarikhani in 108 Ambulance. Appellant-applicant left leg was amputated below the knee and claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (30.03.2013) till the date of realisation.

4. Respondent has filed his written statement and contended that the appellant-applicant is put to strict proof of the accident with documentary evidence to show that due to jerks of the train, he slipped and fell down, it clearly shows that none of the co-passengers unnoticed is untenable and only due to the injured careless and gross negligence attitude the incident has occurred. The respondent has taken utmost care, security and safety in all aspects while carrying passengers in the train and there is no negligence on the part of the railways whatsoever. Appellant-Applicant is put to strict proof that he was a bonafide passenger and holding a valid ticket at the time of accident. Respondent further contended that the injured while catching the running train, slipped and fell down due to his gross negligence, hence the amount of compensation claimed @ Rs.4,00,000/- with interest is untenable and he is not entitled for the same. Divisional Railway Manager-SC has conducted a detailed report, the same is awaited and on receipt of the same, the respondent would like to file additional written statement when the better particulars come to their knowledge and prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for and to what relief?

6. Appellant-applicant is examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent did not led any evidence but got marked Ex.R1.

7. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence and the documents marked thereon has dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant holding that the injured-appellant-applicant is not shown to be a bonafide passenger, no compensation is payable to him under Section 124-A of The Railways Act.

8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that on 09.03.2013 the appellant- applicant was travelling from Kazipet to Mancherial in Nagpur Passenger