APHC010114112018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 335/2018 Between: 1. G.SUBBA RAO, S/O.DANAIAH, R/O.BHUDHAWADA VILLAGE, PANGALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the order made in OA II (U) No.75 of 2013 dated 24.11.2017 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad for the following among other grounds. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.335 of 2018 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful claimant preferred present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), assailing the judgment, dated 24.11.2017, passed in Claim Application No.OA II (U) No.75 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”), rejecting his claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest for injuries sustained by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The claimant stated to have suffered injuries, which were serious in nature as right leg upto thigh came to be amputated and there was a crush injury to left leg and three fingers of left hand were also cut. The said injuries were inflicted because of falling from train while he tried to board it. On 12.10.2010, the claimant was about to board train No.12764 – Padmavathi Express at Renigunta Railway Station to proceed to Ongole, he accidentally fell down and sustained aforesaid 3 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 injuries. After he was treated initially at S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati, later he was treated at Government General Hospital at Guntur and on recovering, the present claim came to be laid. (b) The respondent-Railways has contested the claim by filing written statement denying that on 12.10.2010, the alleged date of incident, Padmavathi Express, which claimant stated to have tried to board, was not in service and the claimant did not possess valid ticket for travel, therefore, cannot be considered as a bona fide passenger for claiming compensation. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide 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?” (d) In order to prove the claim, claimant himself got examined as AW.1 besides marking Exs.A1 to A3. None were examined for respondent Railways, however, Divisional Railway Manager’s Report came to be marked as Ex.R.1. (e) The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, has come to conclusion that the claimant has failed to discharge the initial onus cast on him to demonstrate that he was a bona fide passenger and the incident has occurred at the railway station. It has also come to conclusion that the 4 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 claimant had fell down from moving train due to his own negligence and such finding was rendered basing on Ex.R1, D.R.M’s Report. Therefore, the Tribunal has rejected the claim for compensation. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri I.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel, for respondent Railways. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence on record, which clearly demonstrated that initial burden of establishing the occurrence of incident and also that the claimant was also bona fide passenger stands discharged rather placed high degree of proof, which is not required in deciding cases of this nature. He further contended that the factum of claimant’s presence at Renigunta Railway Station and infliction of injuries while boarding the train are clearly admitted to by the respondent Railways in Ex.R.1 DRM Report, therefore, when once the same are clearly admitted stands proved and the initial burden of establishing the same cast on the claimant gets discharged. The Tribunal has erred in refusing the claim based on Ex.R1, on the ground that the claimant fell down due to his own negligence while trying to board moving train cannot be countenanced in view of the law settled 5 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rina Devi1. Therefore, he pleaded to allow the claim. 6. Per contra, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Railways tried to sustain the order under challenge by contending that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to just conclusion that the claimant miserably failed to discharge the initial burden cast on him and unless the same is discharged, the onus would not shift on respondent Railways to prove the same otherwise, therefore, the findings rendered by Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity. She further contended that even assuming that the claimant stated to be incurred injuries while trying to board moving train, the same is a prohibited act punishable under Section 156 of the Act, therefore, the same would not fall within the ambit of untoward incident for claiming compensation. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The important aspects required to be kept in mind for the purpose of deciding the claims falling under Section 16 of the Act are whether the injured or deceased falls within the definition of bona fide passenger, 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 = 2018 ACJ 1441 6 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 and if so, what is the degree of proof and equally, on whom the burden lies to establish such relevant facts, and whether the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. Law on these aspects is no more res integra and fairly settled. 9. It is the case of the claimant that on 12.10.2010 while he was trying to board train No.12764 at Renigunta Railway Station, he fell down due to imbalance and sustained severe injuries. The nature of injuries sustained are certified under Ex.A2, one of such injury being amputation of right leg upto thigh. In order to prove the same, claimant has got examined himself as AW.1 and marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Railway Police, confirming that claimant sustained injuries on account of the incident occurred on 12.10.2010. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved the said certificate on the ground that the same has been issued on 28.07.2011 and that too the Officer, who had issued has merely gone by the statement of the informant. The analysis and finding of Tribunal based on Ex.A1 certificate really cannot be found fault with. However, there is a crucial piece of evidence on record, which was got marked by respondent Railways itself as Ex.R1 DRM Report. A glance of said report goes to show that the respondent Railways have clearly admitted that the claimant tried to board the train when the train was in motion, and the 7 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 same tantamounted to negligent act punishable under the provisions of the Act. The findings of the said report clearly demonstrate that the claimant had suffered injuries while he was trying to board the train. In a way though initial burden lies on the claimant to prove that he was bona fide passenger and was in the premises of Railway Station at the time of incident, the claimant could not demonstrate the same from the evidence let in, which was rightly viewed so by the Tribunal. However, the respondent Railways since have admitted to the said factum, the initial burden, which was cast on the claimant, stands discharged. The report, except for saying that injured passenger since tried to board train, while it was in motion and the same is a negligent act by itself and liable for punishment under the provisions of Section 156 of the Act, no other reason is given why the compensation should not be awarded to the claimant. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rina Devi’s case1, while considering the plea of self-negligence of victim, resulting in either death or injuries, has held as under: “25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self-inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 8 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652] laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 11. In view of the above exposition of law that even in case where injury is suffered in course of boarding or de-boarding the train, the same needs to be considered as an untoward incident entitling the victim for compensation, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Railways needs to be rejected. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- following Clause 20 of Schedule 2 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which envisages the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for amputation below knee. Ex.A2-certificate indicates that the claimant has suffered amputation of right leg upto thigh. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 12. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed error in not appreciating aforesaid valid piece of evidence and admission made by the Railways itself in Ex.R.1 D.R.M. Report and rather chose only to reject the claim, holding that claimant is self-negligent and even punishable for such an act, the said finding is not sustainable. 9 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.335 of 2018 13. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Appeal stands allowed by allowing the claim of compensation. The appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000, then the appellant shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Aforesaid amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:08.10.2025. cs