APHC010193502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 239/2019 Between: 1. B. HARISH ALIAS HARI, S/O. NARINGA RAO, OCC. LORRY DRIVER R/O. KAKARLAVARI STREET GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep.By its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous appeal against the Judgment dated 08-02-2019 passed in OA II (u) No. 399 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 Pleased to condone the delay of 84 days in filing of the appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J CMA No.239 of 2019 J U D G M E N T: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur (for brevity, “the Tribunal”) in O.A. II (U) No.399 of 2012, whereby the claim application filed by the applicant was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant/injured, prior to the accident, went to meet his cousin, B.Suryanarayana, at Amudalavalasa and thereafter proceeded to Ponduru. Accompanied by his cousin, he reached Srikakulam Road Railway Station in the afternoon hours of 25.05.2012. It is stated that his cousin purchased a journey ticket bearing No.61128151 from Srikakulam Road to Ponduru, and the applicant boarded Train No.67243 (Palasa–Visakhapatnam MEMU). While the train was passing between Kilometer Nos.755/22-23 near Dusi Railway Station, due to sudden jerks and speed of the train, the applicant fell down and sustained injuries, including fracture of the left femur and injuries to the head, right hand and left thigh. He was immediately shifted to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, where he took treatment till 09.06.2012. It is also claimed that he incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,05,000/-. 4. The respondent–Railways filed a counter denying the allegations and contending that the claim is false and baseless. It is their case that the applicant travelled on the footboard of a moving train and sustained self- 3 VS,J CMA No.239 of 2019 inflicted injuries, and therefore, the incident does not fall within the purview of an “untoward incident”. It is further contended that the alleged ticket is a planted one. As per Ex.R1/Divisional Railway Manager’s report, the train was not crowded, no alarm chain pulling was reported, and no information regarding any such incident was received by the Guard or Station authorities. It is also stated that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal 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 the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. Before the Tribunal, the applicant examined himself as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of respondent-railways, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1/D.R.M. Report was marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the application. 8. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellant/applicant has preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger, despite the original train ticket bearing No.61128151 having been marked as Ex.A1. 9. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4 VS,J CMA No.239 of 2019 10. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is observed that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground of material inconsistencies in the version of the applicant. While A.W.1/the applicant, in his deposition before the Tribunal stated that he alone went to Gudivada Railway Station and purchased the journey ticket, however, in paragraph 6(b) of the O.A., the applicant specifically pleaded that he, along with his cousin, B.Suryanarayana, went to Srikakulam Road Railway Station in the afternoon hours of 25.05.2012 and that the journey ticket bearing No.61128151 was purchased by his cousin. In view of such variation in the statements, the Tribunal disbelieved the case of the applicant. 11. In case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi in Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstnaces….” 12. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant produced the original ticket, which was marked as Ex.A1. Merely because there is a discrepancy between the contents of the O.A. and the deposition with regard to the 5 VS,J CMA No.239 of 2019 purchase of the ticket, i.e., in the O.A. it was stated that the said ticket was purchased by the cousin of the applicant, whereas in the deposition the applicant stated that he alone went to the railway station and purchased the ticket, the Tribunal refused to take into consideration Ex.A1/original ticket to consider the applicant as a bona fide passenger. This approach of the Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, is erroneous. Even, as per Rina Devi’s judgment, mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. In the case on hand, the original ticket is very much available and was marked as Ex.A1 before the Tribunal. Thus, it can be held that the applicant was a bona fide passenger. 13. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant failed to produce any X- ray or medical report to substantiate the alleged fracture injuries. Except for filing Ex.A3/attested copy of Memo to RIMS Hospital, Ex.A6/O.P. ticket, and Ex.A7/medical prescription, no medical records were produced to establish the nature of injuries. Though the applicant claimed that he was admitted in the hospital on 25.05.2012, underwent surgery on 29.05.2012, and was discharged on 09.06.2012, no discharge summary or supporting medical documents were filed. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish that he sustained the alleged injuries, i.e., (i) fracture of left femur bone, (ii) injury to right hand, (iii) injury to the head, and (iv) multiple injuries over the body. 6 VS,J CMA No.239 of 2019 14. Since it is proved and established that the applicant is a bona fide passenger and travelled in the said train and sustained injuries in an untoward incident, but, however, there is no sufficient and satisfactory medical evidence produced to prove the exact nature and extent of the injuries, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to compensation only under the category of non-scheduled injuries. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) as just and reasonable compensation. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, awarding a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the appellant/applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 11.03.2026 KGR