CMA/600/2017 of C.NAGARAJA , C.NAGARAJU Vs THE SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 29 December 2023

JUDGMENT:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is {iled by the applicantunder Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 197g (forshort Act') aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.12.2016 in OAANo.189 of 2011 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal,secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to asTribunal'), q,herein the claim petition filed by the applicantclaiming compensation of Rs.4,00,OOO/- with interest for injuriessustained by him, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the sake of convenience, sake of convenience, of convenience, convenience, hereinafter, the parties will bereferred as per their array before the Tribunal.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was doingbusiness and in order to go to parli Vyjanadh on business work,he went to Vayalpad railway station to go to Guntakal in theafternoon of 27 .11 .2010. He purchased a passenger train journeyticket from Vaya-lpad to Guntakal and boarded rrain No.57475'lirupati-Guntakal passenger in a general compartment. Whenthe train was halting at Guntakal railway station in the night ofthe same day, due tr heavy rush of the passengers, the applicant carne to the door of the [compartment ][to ][get ][down ][from ][the ][train,]as and when the train fully [halted. ][However, ][he ][suddenly ][slipped]and fell down accidentally [from the ][said ][running ][train ][at ][Guntakal]railway station in [between ][platform. ][Due ][to ][the ][jerks ][of ][the ][said]running train, the [right ][leg and ][three ][toes ][of ][the left ][foot ][of ][the]were [severely ][crushed, ][cut ][and ][separated' ][Immediately,]applicant the applicant was shifted [to ][Government ][Hospital, Guntakal, ][by]the railway staff [and he ][was ][admitted ][there' ][After ][one ][hour' ][he]was shifted to Government [General ][Hospital, Ananthapur ][ald]lastly, he was shifted [to ][Ruya Hospital, ][Tirupati, ][where ][he ][got]He [sustained ][injuries ][of ][traumatic ][amputation of right]operated. leg [just ]above the [knee, ][traumatic amputation ][of ][three ][toes ][on ][left]foot,leftfootwascrushedandskinandfleshrvaslostarrdhealsosustained other [multiple injuries ][all ][over ][the ][body' ][Hence' ][the]present application [is ][filed ][seeking ][compensation ][for the ][injuries]sustained bY [him.]

The respondent respondent [[rajlways ][filed ][written ][statement ][along ][with]][[filed ][written ][statement ][along ][with]][[written ][statement ][along ][with]][[statement ][along ][with]][[along ][with]][[with]]

4. The respondent respondent [[rajlways ][filed ][written ][statement ][along ][with]][[filed ][written ][statement ][along ][with]][[written ][statement ][along ][with]][[statement ][along ][with]][[along ][with]][[with]]the report of [the ][Divisional Railway Manager (for ][short ]['DRMJ' ][It]is the case of [the ][respondent ][that ][the ][applicant ][has ][not ][adduced]evidence [to ][prove ][that ][he ][was doing ][business' ][It ][denied ][the]any occurrence [of the ][accident, manner ][of ][the ][accident and injuries]

JMCP,JcMA_600_20 17

sustained by the applicant. The accident was not disclosed by anyco-passenger and there was no eyewitness to the incident. It iscontended that as the applicant stated that he lost his journeycontended that as the applicant stated that he lost his journeyticket during the accident, he cannot be termed as bona fidepassenger without journey ticket. It is also contended thatpassengers are bound to stay inside the train until the destinationis arrived ald as the applicant himself stated that he came to thedoor of the compartment, the incident cannot be termed asuntoward incident. Hence, the respondent prayed to dismiss theclaim application of the applicant.door of the compartment, the incident cannot be termed asuntoward incident. Hence, the respondent prayed to dismiss theclaim application of the applicant.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the trainand sustained the injuries as a result of an untoward incident?and sustained the injuries as a result of an untoward incident?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim the compensation asprayed for and to what reliePprayed for and to what relieP

6. The applicant, in order to substantiate his claim gotexamined himself as A.W. 1 and also got examined A.W.2 and gotmarked Exs.A- 1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesseswere examined, but Ex.R-1 was marked.

The Tribunal, after considering both oral ald documentaqrTribunal, after considering both oral ald documentaqrconsidering both oral ald documentaqrboth oral ald documentaqrald documentaqrdocumentaqr 7 . The Tribunal, after considering both oral ald documentaqrTribunal, after considering both oral ald documentaqrconsidering both oral ald documentaqrboth oral ald documentaqrald documentaqrdocumentaqrevidence placed on record, has dismissed the claim petition [of the]applicalt. Aggrieved by the said [judgment, ]the applicant [had]preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Heard, the learned counsel for the applicant and the [learned]standing counsel for the respondent and [perused ][the ][entire]record.

The main contention contention of the learned counsel counsel [[for ]][[the]]

9 . The main contention contention of the learned counsel counsel [[for ]][[the]]applicant/appellant is that the applicant [has ][proved ][his ][case ][by]examining himself as A.W. 1 and [also A.W.2, ][who ][is ][the ][doctor,]who treated him and relying on [documents ][under Exs.A-l ][to ][A-9,]but the Tribuna,l without [considering ][the ][same ][has ][erroneously]dismissed the claim application [on ][the ][ground ][that ][the ][applicant]failed to establish that he [was ][a bonafde ][passenger ][and ][that ][he]sustained injuries in an [untoward ][incident']

10. Per contra, learned standing [counsel ][for ][the ][respondent]contended that the applicant did [not ][sustained ][injuries ][in ][an]untoward incident and considering the [same, ][the ][Tribunal ][has]rightly dismissed the claim [petition. ][Hence, prayed ][to ][dismiss the]present appeal.

11. Now the point for consideration is as follows:

"Whether the applicant is entitied for compensation as claimedfor?"

Point:-

12. This Court perused the documents and evidence placed onrecord by both the sides. The applicalt got examined himself asA.W. 1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition. In thecross-examination, he denied that he is not a bona fid.e passengeras he lost the journey ticket at the time of the accident. In orderto prove the injuries sustained by him, the applicant got examinedA.W.2, who is Dr. S. Vidya Sagar, who deposed about the injuriessustained by the applicant.

13. Ex.A-l is the photograph of the applicant showing hisinjuries. Ex.A-4 is the original discharge summary issued byGovernment General Hospital, Tirupathi, showing the date ofadmission of the applicant as 29.1 1.2010 and discharge on13.01.2011. Ex.A-S disability certificate discloses that theapplicant received injuries of traumatic amputation of right leglower 1/3'a and crush injury of mediar 3 toes of reft foot. Ex.A_6 isthe concession certificate. Ex.A_7 is the case sheet and Ex.A_g isthe X-ray. Ex.A-9 is the copy of accident register. All thesedocuments coupled with the evider:ce of A.W.2 disclose that the \

MGP,JcMA 600 2017

applicarrt sustained injuries and his right leg and three toes of theleft foot were severely crushed, cut ald separated.

14. The applicant, in order to prove the case set up by him [has]to prove that he is bonafde passenger on the train and that [he]sustajned injuries in an untoward incident. Then, the onus [shifts]on to the respondent to disprove the case set up [by ]the [applicant.]In the present case in hand, the applicant has not [produced ][the]journey ticket to show that he was travelling in Train bearingNo.57475 Tirupati-Guntakal passenger on 27.ll.2OlO. [The]applicant simply stated that he lost [the ][journey ][ticket ][at the ][time]of accident. The applicant has also not [adduced any ][evidence to]show that he is bonafide [passenger of ]train [bearing ][No.57475 ][as]on the date of the incident and that [he ][lost ][the journey ][ticket.]Further, he has not examined aly [witness ]to [substantiate his ][case]that he was traveling in Train bearing [No.57475 ][Tirupati-]Guntakal passenger on 27.11.2010 [from ][Vayalpad ][to ][Guntakal]and he fell down from the [running ][train ][at ][Guntakal ][railway]station, due to which he sustained [iniuries. ][Though, ][the]applicant proved that [he ][had ][sustained ][injuries through ][Exs.A-l,]A-4 to A-9, he failed to [prove ][the ][occurrence of ][untoward incident]as alleged by him. The appiicalt [has ][also ][not ][adduced ][aly]

.i\

\

:7

+

evidence to show that a criminal case was registered with regardto the accident. He did not file copy of FIR or any such documentto show the occurrence of the incident as a_lleged by him. In acase of this nature, it is the duty of the appticalt to file anydocuments or adduce evidence to substaltiate the case set up byhim. The applicant filed Ex.A-2 intimation to police and Ex.A_3statement given by him to police. Except, said documents noother documents such as FIR, charge sheet etc., have been filedby him to show the occurrence of untoward incident.

On the other hand, the respondent got marked Ex.R_1 DRMthe other hand, the respondent got marked Ex.R_1 DRMrespondent got marked Ex.R_1 DRMmarked Ex.R_1 DRMEx.R_1 DRM

15. On the other hand, the respondent got marked Ex.R_1 DRMthe other hand, the respondent got marked Ex.R_1 DRMrespondent got marked Ex.R_1 DRMmarked Ex.R_1 DRMEx.R_1 DRMreport, which along with its enclosures cleariy discloses that theapplicant had not travefled in the said train and that he did notreport, which along with its enclosures cleariy discloses that theapplicant had not travefled in the said train and that he did notmet with any untoward incident by accidentally falling down fromthe train. As per the said report, no incident was reported on27.ll.2OlO, as alleged by the applicant.27.ll.2OlO, as alleged by the applicant.

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clearlyestablished through the evidence on record that the applicantfailed to discharge his initial burden of proving that he was a bonafde [passenger ]and that an untoward incident occurred as allegedby him. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that theTribunal has discussed the evidence ava,able on record in detail (

(

MGP,JcMA 600 2077

and carne to a correct conciusion and rightiy dismissed the craimapplication. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with theIindings of the Tribunal and the appeal is devoid of merits andliable to be dismissed.

77 . In result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 14.12.2016 in OAA No.1g9 of 2011on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench atSecunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneousapplications, if any pending, sha1l stald closed.

SD/.K. SRINIVASA RAO

JOINT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTtoN oFF|CER i

To,

'1. 2. One CC to The Railway Claims Tribunal, Sectrnderabad Bench, at SRt. GEETHA IMADHURT N Secunderabadilnor"*t"'fb'pucf2. One CC to The Railway Claims Tribunal, Sectrnderabad Bench, at SRt. GEETHA IMADHURT N Secunderabadilnor"*t"'fb'pucf3 91: [qc ]to sRt. GADI pnnveerv kurur'aiisi.'66icjX ceNrnLcow) [oPUC]cow) [oPUC]

.)..,

II

4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies

DL

MY

cuL

I,a

'r:, i,,:,;

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

JUDGMENTCMA.No.6O0 of 2011

DISMISSING THE CMA

o*fu1'r

l.t': " '"".i;.Ii-c,4<',,.i'*t('!s.:ttLLs.'...

--:'--i"*-

$ffr'Ii

!1+

I$

i,I$*I-a+rl+,,.ii,Iffii: