CMA/1066/2011 of T.Venugopal, Vs The Union of India, on 29 December 2023

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hled by the applicantunder Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (forshort 'Act') aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2011 in OAANo.20 of 2OO3 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal,Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as"lribunal'), wherein the claim petition Iiled by the applicantclaiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest for injuriessustained by him, was dismissed.

2. For the sake the sake sake of convenience, hereinafter, convenience, hereinafter, hereinafter, referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

For the sake the sake sake of convenience, hereinafter, convenience, hereinafter, hereinafter, the parties will be

3. The applicant filed the present claim petition seekingcompensation of Rs.4,OO,0O0/- along with interest, for injuriessustained by him in an untoward train incident. On, 09.12.2OO2,the applicant was returning to Maldamarri after a visit toSirpurkagaznagar in Ramagiri passenger train with ticket bearingNo.05024. When the train reached Mandamarri, the applicantwas standing in front of the bathroom and some persons came to get down at Mandamarri and the door of the compartment hithim, due to which he ferl down from the traie and came under thewheels and lost his two legs. Initiarly, civil police Maldammarrienquired the matter, but then he was asked to register the casewith Government Railway police (for short [,GRp,), ]Bellampally. Hefurther stated that somebody took him to Government Hospital,Mancheiral, and from there he was referred to MGM Hospital,Warangal. In the said circumstances, the present application isfrled seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

4. The respondent railways filed written statement stating thatwritten statement stating thatstatement stating thatthough, the incident was alleged to have occurred on 09.12.2OO2,the applicant produced the diary of RpS, Bellampa_lly dated16.02.2002, which reveals that the incident was reported by thebrother of the applicant on 16.02.2002. Hence, as the same isinadmissible, the respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.Further, the respondent frled additional written statement,wherein it is stated that the guard of the train stated that onO9.12.2OO2, the train left Sirpur town at 15:40 hours, Bellampallyat 16:51 hours and arrived at Mandamarri at about 16:59 hoursand there was no report of any untoward incident, no ACp and noinformation from any passenger regarding any fall from the train.

The respondent railways filed written statement stating thatwritten statement stating thatstatement stating that

5. Initially, the claim petition filed by the applicant wasdismissed uide judgment dated 2O.12.2OO5 by the Tribunal.However, this Court has set aside the said order of the Tribunaland remanded the case back for fresh consideration after givingopportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence and mark theadditional evidence i.e., the certificate of Sub-Inspector of police,Mandamarri, which was received by this Court.

6. Subsequent to remand, based on the pleadings of theparties, the Tribunal framed the fotlowing issues for consideration:

"i. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the trainin question?in question?

2. Whether the applicant had sustained injuries due to anuntoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act?untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act?

3. Relief and costs?"

7 . The applicant, in order to substaatiate his claim gotexamined himself as A.W. I and also examined A.Ws.2 to 4 and gotmarked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.l wasexamined and Ex.R-1 was got marked.

8. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentar5revidence placed on record, has dismissed the claim petition of the applicant. Aggrieved by the said [judgment, ]the applicant hadpreferred the present Civil Miscellaneous AppeaJ.

9. Initially, the the present Civil Miscellaleous Civil Miscellaleous Miscellaleous Appeal

9. Initially, the the present Civil Miscellaleous Civil Miscellaleous Miscellaleous Appealwasdismissed Court uide [judgment ]dated 06.09.2016.by this Subsequently,revlewapplication uide I.A.No.1 to 2016(Rev.C.M.A.M.P.No.1792 of 2016) was filed and the sarne wasallowed by this Court by order dated 23.06.2022 and the [Civil]Miscellaneous Appeal was reopened for fresh hearing.10. Heard, the learned counsel for the applicant and [the ][learned]standing counsel for the respondent ald [perused ][the ][entire]record 1 1 . The main contention of the learned [counsel ][for ][the]appellant/applicant is that though the applicant [has ][clearly]established his case, the Tribunal [without ][considering ][the]evidence placed on record has dismissed the [claim ][petition.]Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by [setting ][aside ][impugned]judgment and grant compensation to the applicant for [the ][injuries]sustained by him in the untoward [incident.]

12. Per contra, the learned standing [counsel ][for ][the ][respondent]railways contended that the Tribunal [after ][considering ][the]

evidence placed on record rightly dismissed the claim petition andinterference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed todismiss the present appeal.interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed todismiss the present appeal.

13. Now the point for consideration is as follows:

"Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimedfor?"Point:-

14. This Court perused the documents and evidence placed onrecord by both the sides. The applicant got examined himself asA.W. 1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition. Though,he was cross-examined nothing contrary was elicited. In supportof his case, he got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. Exs.A-1 to A-4 are copyof GD extract, original ticket, memo of police and origina_ldischarge card respectively, which were marked through A.W. 1.He also got marked Ex.A-8, which is the original case sheet fromM.G.M.Hospital, Warangal.

15. The applicarlt got examined, the Sub-Inspector of Mandamarri Police Station as A.W.2, who deposed about theincident based on records. He got marked Exs.A-5-certificateissued by the sub-Inspector of [police, ]Mandamarri police Station,incident based on records. He got marked Exs.A-5-certificateissued by the sub-Inspector of [police, ]Mandamarri police Station, MGP,JTcMA_1066 [201 ][i]

Ex.A-6-statement [of ][one ][M. Rambabu and ][Ex.A-7-letter ][addressed]to [Sub-lnspector ][of ][Police, ][Mandamarri ][Police]by the applicant Station requesting [to ][conduct ][enquiry' ][In the ][cross-examination']that [as ][on ][the ][date ][of ][incident, ][he ][was ][not ][working]A.W.2 deposed in Mandamarri [Police ][Station. ][He also ][deposed ][that the ][Ex'A-S]was issued by the then [Station ][House Officer, ][Mandamarri ][Police]Station.

16. The applicalt [got ][examined one Rambabu ][as ][A'W'3' ][who ][is]an auto driver and [he ][deposed ][that ][he was ][acquainted ][with ][the]even [prior ][to ][the ][incident' ][On ][the ][date of ][incident' ][one]applicant unknown person [came ][and ][informed ][him that ][there ][was ][a ][train]incident and [one person was ][injured ][and ][requested ][A'W'3 to ][help]him to shift the [injured ][to ][hospital' ][When, ][A'W'3 ][went ][to ][the ][spot']he identified the [said ][injured ][person.as ][the ][applicant' ][Then' ][he]took the applicant [to ][Mandamarri ][Police ][Station and ][later' ][shifted]the applicant to [Government ][Hospital, Mancherial ][on ][referral']referred to [M.G.M. ][HosPital,]SubsequentlY, [the ][aPPlicant ][was]Warangal, for [better ][treatment']In the cross-examination, [he]that [he ][did not ][todge ][police complaint ][with ][regard ][to]deposed incident. He [stated ][that ][the ][police recorded ][his ][statement ][and]

that he informed the famity members of the applicant about theincident.

17. The brother of the applicant was examined as A.W.4. Hedeposed that he came to know about the incident from A.W.3 andhe along with other family members went to Government Hospital,Mancherial. The applicant was shifted from the said hospital toGovernment Hospital, Karimnagar and finally, to M.G.M.Hospital,Warangal, for better treatment. He stated that he never informedthe doctors at M.G.M. Hospital that the applicant was hit by thetrain while crossing the railway track. He also deposed that on16.12.2002, he reported about the incident to GovernmentRailway Police, Bellampally, who informed him that they receivedinformation from the Maldamarri police Station and entered thesame in General Diary on 16.12.2002. In his cross-examination,he categorically denied the suggestions put to him by therespondent.

18. The respondent, in support of its case got examined R.W.1,who is guard of the Ramagiri passenger train. He deposed that hewas not aware of any case of fall from his train and that there washeavy rush in the train on the said date. He got marked Ex.R-l,which is rough copy ofjournal.

-t"-/

19. The applicant, in order to prove the case set up by him hasto prove that he is bona fde passenger on the train and that hesustained injuries in an untoward incident. Then, the onus shiftson to the respondent to disprove the case set up by the applicant.The applicant got marked the original [journey ]ticket bearingNo.05024 as Ex.A-2, which is obtained to travel fromSirpurkagaznagar to Mandamarri. Admittedly, the allegedincident occurred at Mandamarri Railway Station. This showsthat the applicant was holding valid ticket to travel on the saidtrain. Further, the respondent has not adduced any contraryevidence disputing the [journey ]ticket under Ex.A-2. Hence, thisCourt finds no reason to disbelieve the [journey ]ticket underEx.A-2.

20. In order to prove the occurrence of the untoward [incident,]the applicant [got ]examined [A.Ws.2 ]to 4 and marked [Exs.A-1 ][to A-]8. Ex.A-l-copy of GD extract, Ex.A-3 [memo ][of police referring ][the]applicant to Hospital, Ex.A-S certificate [issued ][by ][Mandamarri]Police, Ex.A-6 statement of A.W.3 and Ex.A-7 letter [addressed by]the applicant to Sub-Inspector, Mandamarri Police Station. [All]these documents coupled with evidence of A.Ws.2 to 4 clearly demonstrate that the A.W.3 received information from oneunknown person that a person was lound with injuries in theMandamarri Railway Station and he along with that person wentto the railway station to shift the injured to the hospital. Uponreaching, A.W.3 identilied the injured as the applicant, who is hisacquaintance. Immediately, he took the applicant to Mandamarriunknown person that a person was lound with injuries in theMandamarri Railway Station and he along with that person wentto the railway station to shift the injured to the hospital. Uponreaching, A.W.3 identilied the injured as the applicant, who is hisacquaintance. Immediately, he took the applicant to MandamarriPolice Station to inform about the untoward incident. Then, thePolice Mandamarri issued Ex.A3 referring the applicant toGovernment Hospital, Mancheiral, and they informed about theGovernment Hospital, Mancheiral, and they informed about theincident to GRP, Bellampally, who is having jurisdiction, forfurther action. Later on, A.W.3 shifted the applicant to hospitalfurther action. Later on, A.W.3 shifted the applicant to hospitaland informed to A.W.4 and other family members. In this regard,statement of A.W.3 was recorded under Ex.A-6. Subsequently,A.W.4 on L6.12.2OO2 informed about the incident to the GRp,Bellampally and the same was entered into General Diary, whichis evident from Ex.A-l copy of G.D. extract. Furthermore, tois evident from Ex.A-l copy of G.D. extract. Furthermore, tosubstaltiate the said facts, the appticant got marked Ex.A_Scertificate issued by sub-Inspector of police, Mandamarri policestation. All these documentary and oral evidence substantiatesstation. All these documentary and oral evidence substantiatesthe case set up by the applicant with regard to occurrence of theuntoward incident.untoward incident.

,/./

21. Furthermore, the applicant got marked Ex.A-4 dischargecard and Ex.A-S original case sheet from M.G.M. [Hospital,]Warangal. The said documents clearly establish that theapplicant sustained traumatic above knee ,amputation of [both]limbs i.e., left leg high thigh and right leg mid thigh.

22. It is pertinent to state that in view of the [above, ]it [is ][clear]that the applicant has successfully established the [occurrence of]the untoward incident and also injuries sustained [by ][him ][in ][the]said incident. He also established that [he ][is ]a [bona ]ftde [passenger]on the train as on the date [of ]untoward [incident. ][Now, ][the ][onus]shifts on to the respondent to disprove [the ][case ][set ][up ][by ][the]applicant.

23. Learned standing counsel for [the respondent contended ][that]the applicant sustained injuries [while ][crossing ][the ][railway ][track]and not by accidentally falling [from ][the ][train ][and the ][same ][is]evident from the original case sheet [from ][M.G.M.Hospital,]Warangal, under Ex.A-8, wherein there [is ][endorsement ][by ][the]hospital authorities that the applicant sustained [injuries ][while]crossing the railway track. Except, such contention [no ][other]\roborative [evidence ][is ][placed ][by the ][respondent ][on ][record ][to]

prove such contention. Mere endorsement of hospital authoritiesdoes not prove that the applicant sustained injuries while crossingthe railway track.

24. It is pertinent to state that the respondent has not producedthe Divisional Railway Manager Report, which is very crucial toprove or disprove the occurrence of an untoward incident.Furthermore, the respondent only got examined R.W. 1, who isguard and his evidence does not contain arything about theapplicant sustaining injuries at the time of crossing the railwaytrack. He simply deposed that there was no untoward incident onthe said date. In the absence of the DRM report, the evidence ofR.W.l, who is guard, is also not very reliabie. There.is also noevidence with regard to action taken by the GRP, Bellampally, withregard to ttre incident after the report made by A.W.4 and alsoaction taken by them after receiving information by theMandamarri Police. The respondent did not make any effort toproduce any e'ridence with regard to action taken by the GRP,Bellampally. If the untoward incident did not occur the samewould have been revealed in the investigation, if any, done byGRP, Bellampally.

cMA_1066_201 MGP,J I1

25. Under these circumstances, [it ][is ][clear ][that ][the applicant ][has]

proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and the respondentfailed to rebut the same. The Tribunal [without ][considering ][all]these aspects has wrongly dismissed [the ][claim ][petition ][of ][the]applicant. Therefore, this [Court ][is ][of ][the ][considered ][opinion ][that]the applicant is entitled [for compensation for ][injuries ][sustained ][by]him in an untoward [incident ][while ][traveling ][in ][Ramagiri]passenger train.

26. Coming to the [quantum ][of ][compensation, ][the ][applicant]sustained amputation [of ][both ][legs ][below ][knee and ][as ][per ][Part ][II ][of]Schedule annexed to the [Railway Accidents ][and ][Untoward]Incidents (Compensation) [Rules, ][1990, ][he ][is ][entitled ][to ][claim]compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- [from the respondent.]

27. In the result, the [Civil ][Miscellaneous ][Appeal ][is ][allowed ][by]setting aside the [judgment ][dated 08.07.2011 ][in ][OAA ][No'20 ][of]2OO3 on the file of the [Railway Claims ][Tribunal, ][Secunderabad]Bench at Secunderabad. [The applicant ][is ][granted ][compensation]of Rs.8,OO,OOO/- for injuries [sustained ][by ][him ][in ][untoward]incident while traveling in train. [The ][respondent ][railways ][is]directed to [deposit ][the ][compensation ][amount ][before ][the ][Tribunal]with'lrl [a period of two ][months from the ][date ][of ][receipt of a ][copy ][of]

this judgment. On such deposit, the applicant is entitled towithdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shallbe no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if anypending, shall stand closed.withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shallbe no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if anypending, shall stand closed.

SD/-B.S. CHIRANJEEVIJOINT RESTRAR

//TRUE COPY/A

SECTION O FICER

To,

1 . The Railway Claims Tribunal [Bench at Secunderabad.(with records)]2. One CC to Sri S. Chandrasekhar, [Advocate ]IOPUCI3. One CC to Sri Gadi [Praveen Kumar, Advocate ][OPUC]2. One CC to Sri S. Chandrasekhar, [Advocate ]IOPUCI3. One CC to Sri Gadi [Praveen Kumar, Advocate ][OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

plp

iit

I.fI'

,?.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.1066 of 2011

ALLOWING THE C.M.A.WITHOUT COSTS.

a@affi,

;9'"J:;'(1HESrA 14:9:i '1t' =,6o(ols flrn z[ilaz**'l::-.,. SPATcHEO' .,EiilFr,:Uffi-:r-: i1 . . f._- ':. iTs-*' ::..',:ilr:siffiffi:t-..':^4 JF-':Ld*.:-: +ri [,:i'+" :i.:.$,.1:i,, -it' [:].ll.;i,,, .t, +'i.ill: '=_. Ii:,rl,r;S iE*'i:

.1'g : .I.ii