APHC011047602017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 150/2018 Between: 1. P.ARUN, S/O.KOTESWARAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,OCC MASON, R/O MADIGAPALEM, TANGULURU( M) PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, Rep, by its General Manager, South Central Railway,Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders to present this memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the order made inn OA II (U) No.499 of 2009 dt.09-08-2017 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad for the following IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the present C.M.A. and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant: 2 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 150/2018 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by Claimant under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act assailing the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, rejecting the claim in O.A.II.(U).No.499 of 2009. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. This is a case of injury sustained on account of the accident stated to have occurred on 27.12.2008. The claimant while boarding the train at Tangaturu railway station, accidentally slipped and fell down from moving train, therefore, sustained injuries. He got severely injured to his right leg and after being admitted at Government Hospital at Ongole, his leg came to be amputated. He was discharged after the treatment and later he preferred O.A II (U).No.499 of 2009 under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. The Railways filed written statement denying that the accident had occurred within the premises of Tanguturu railway station and that the accident had occurred because of any untoward incident happened nor was 4 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 any FIR registered, therefore, the claimant was not entitled for any compensation. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues to support the case: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train in question on the said date? 2. Whether the applicant has sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 7. Claimant got examined himself as AW.1 and the documents filed by him got marked as Ex.A1 to A5. No witness is examined on behalf of respondent. The Divisional Manager report dated 11.08.2012 came to be marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence on record has come to conclusion that the claimant failed to discharge the initial burden cast showing to establish that he was bonafide passenger holding valid train ticket and the accident has occurred within the premises of Railways. Therefore, rejected the claim. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 8. Heard Sri I.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal was not right in coming to conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the 5 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 initial burden of proving the essential requirement of being a bonafide passenger and that the accident has occurred within the premises of railway station and that it had miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record, in particular Ex.A1, A2 and A3 in proper prospective which clearly establishes and discharge the burden cast on him. He further contended that the tribunal ought not to have given much credence to the Divisional Manager report marked as Ex.R1, inasmuch as the same was submitted much belatedly beyond the statutory period of 60 days. Therefore, it has no legal sanctity. In support of said submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.1170 of 2017. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order by contenting that the Tribunal, after elaborate consideration and appreciation of evidence on record has rightly come to conclusion that claimant has miserably failed to discharge the initial burden on him for showing that he was a bonafide passenger and the accident occurred was untoward incident not entitling him for compensation under the provisions of the Act and the findings so recorded being substantiated with proper reasons, the same do not warrant any interference. 11. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 12. The claimant stated to have suffered injury of amputation of leg. It is his case that as passenger having purchased ticket from Tanguturu to Singarayakonda, slipped and fell down while trying to board train No.442 6 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 Vijayawada - Bitragunta passenger. He stated to have been immediately taken to Government General Hospital, Ongole, by 108 ambulance and got treated there. He also stated that before boarding train, he has purchased second class train ticket, however, the same was lost upon such accident. To prove the said aspect, he has sworn the affidavit besides giving the evidence as AW.1. He also got marked Ex.A1, memo dated 28.12.2008. The said memo is a copy of communication from Head Constable, Ongole I Town Police Station addressed to SHO, Ongole cum Railway Police Station, intimating about the statement made by claimant/complainant which was recorded as Medico Legal case, while he was admitted to the hospital. Further, he also got marked Ex.A2, which is an intimation of accident addressed to Sub-inspector of Police, Railways, Ongole, dated 27.12.2008. Further, under Ex.A3 statement of the Claimant has been filed which was recorded by the Head Constable of I Town Police Station at the time when the injured was admitted to Government General Hospital. All these documents are essentially marked to establish that the claimant had met with an accident at Tangaturu Railway Station on account of bleeding injuries to his right leg and he was shifted to Government General Hospital where he underwent treatment. Original case sheet of Government Hospital has also been marked as Ex.A5. Even the said summary sheet discloses that the injured was admitted in the hospital and the same was treated as Medico Legal Case. The case sheet of the hospital discloses that the injured was stated to have fallen from moving train and therefore sustained a severe injury to right leg and after 7 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 taking his consent, a surgery was performed. Later, his leg came to be amputated. 13. On the face of aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal, without adverting to any of that, has merely concluded that the claimant has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove that he was travelling with a valid train ticket and that accident has occurred, which was an untoward incident. 14. This Court, in S.Ranganayakulu v. Union of India rep by GM/S C Railway/Secunderabad1 has considered the parameters for deciding claims falling under Section 16 of the Act, by referring to various judgments rendered by an Apex Court. Inasmuch as the claimant has on affidavit stated that he had purchased valid ticket and the accident has occurred within the premises of railway station of Tanguturu, the same itself would be sufficient to say he discharged the initial onus to prove the aspect. The burden now gets shifted to the railways to disprove the aforesaid aspect. The only piece of evidence which the respondents has placed on record is the Divisional Manager report dated 11.08.2012. 15. Even otherwise the statement of gangman was recorded only on 11.08.2012 and after occurrence of incident and the findings of the report clearly suggests that the railway police did not possess the records relating to the incident, meaning thereby the said statement only suggests non availability of records but cannot be a presumption that never such incident 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3282 8 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 occurred in railway station. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, which are memos issued by regular police to Tanguturu Village Railway Police intimating the occurrence of accident within railway premises and later, followed by intimation report issued by railway police, Ongole, clearly demonstrate that the occurrence of incident was to the notice of knowledge of the concerned officers of railways. The said sequence of events clearly demonstrate the version of the claimant. 16. Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, contemplate enquiry and drawing of report within 30 days. However, in the present case the same got enquired and drawn only on 11.08.2012 which is almost nearer to 4 years of the accident. Therefore, the same cannot be considered to be a valid enquiry mandated under the Rules for taking cognizance of. Since there is no other piece of evidence placed on record at the instance of respondent, it can be concluded that the plea raised by claimant clearly stands unreverted. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant has clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had sustained injuries of amputation in an untoward incident happened at Tangaturu Railway Station and as he being a bona fide passenger is entitled to the compensation. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- following clause 20 schedule 2 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which envisages the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for case of amputation below knee. The medical evidence on 9 HCGR,J CMA.No.150 of 2018 record, in particular Ex.A1-original case sheet indicates that the claimant has suffered amputation below knee. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 18. 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 realization. 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 06th October, 2025 RKS