1 VS,J CMA_392 of 2019 APHC010275462019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 392/2019 Between: 1. B. YELESU, GUN ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, sec ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders 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 109 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2 VS,J CMA_392 of 2019 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_392 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench in OA II (U)No.55 of 2012, filed by the injured whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the application, the appellant/injured filed this appeal. 2. The appellant herein is the applicant/injured and the respondent is the Union of India, represented by its General manager, South Central Railway. It is the case of the appellant that in pursuit of his hair business, on 02.12.2010, he along with his brother in law reached Markapuram in order to go to Potlapadu. It is stated that having purchased II Class general tickets, they boarded train No.304 – Ex. Hubli – Vijayawada passenger and stood near wash basin due to heavy rush. When the said train arrived at his destination, the appellant is said to have slipped accidentally and sustained several injuries. Later, he is said to have been shifted to Government General Hospital, Vinukonda with the help of his brother in law, where his left leg below knee was amputated. Thus, he filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the application. Further, the respondent relied on the report of the Divisional Railway manager as per which, the appellant fell down at KM No.112/0 between Potlapadu and Kurchedu railway stations. It was contended that the appellant has to get down at Potlapadu, but without doing so, he continued to travel further without any valid ticket. Thus requested to dismiss the claim of the appellant. 4 VS,J CMA_392 of 2019 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 2) Whether the Applicant is entitled to the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 5. Since none appeared for the appellant before the Tribunal and as the incident relates to the year 2010, no evidence has been led by the appellant invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the RCT Act, 1987 and as such, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment dismissing the claim of the appellant, relying on the material available before it. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was preferred. 6. Heard Sri. I. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Uma Devi Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. A perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the appellant is said to have reached Markapuram along with his brother in law with a view to go to Potlapadu and that they have purchased II Class general tickets and boarded Ex. Hubli – Vijayawada passenger train bearing No.304. Due to heavy rush, the appellant is said to have stood at wash basin and that he fell down and sustained severe injuries when the train arrived at his destination. His left leg was amputated and in support of the same, he filed original journey ticket, discharge certificate from Government General Hospital, Guntur. Thus he claimed the application seeking Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. However, it appears that none appeared for the appellant before the 5 VS,J CMA_392 of 2019 Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment basing on the material available on record. 8. It can be seen from the report of the Divisional Railway Manager that the appellant fell down at KM No.112/0, which is between Potlapadu and Kurchedu railway stations. Potlapadu railway station is situated at KM No.113.85 which indicates that the appellant fell down after two kilometers of his destination. It clearly establishes the fact that the appellant overstepped his destination station. In general, an unintentional overriding of the journey for which a ticket is purchased is an accident which can be corrected by payment of fine or purchase of a ticket back to the original destination. The High Court of Telangana, in B. Narayana Vs. Union of India1, under similar circumstances held that the passengers who travelled beyond their destination in a train would be liable to pay excess fare or charge for the over travelled distance. But, merely on the ground that a person travelled beyond his destination in a train, it cannot be held that he is not a bonafide passenger without a proper pass or ticket. The mere fact that a passenger had over-travelled beyond the destination does not necessarily warrant a finding that he was not a bonafide passenger, though such person is liable to pay proper or excess fare to the Railways. 9. In view of the principle of law laid down in the aforementioned judgment, it is evident that merely because the passenger over-travelled the destination, it cannot be said that the said passenger is not a bonafide passenger. Thereby, the appellant/injured is entitled for compensation as his left leg below knee was amputated due to the untoward incident that occurred on 02.12.2010. 1 CMA No.20 of 2003 6 VS,J CMA_392 of 2019 10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands allowed by ay allowing the claim of compensation. The appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as per part III (20) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016. The amount thus computed 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 order. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:05.02.2026. Gss