HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A.NO.341 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal preferred by one Mohammed Ziyaoddin, who herein after will be referred as appellant under Section 23 Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.305 of 2010 by which the application filed by the appellant herein for compensation was dismissed.
2. The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that he suffered injuries due to fall from Bhagyanagar Express while traveling from Mancherial to Bellampally on 29-09-2010. He was referred to Hospital at Mancherial. His left leg was amputated below the knee. He has placed oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal but his application was dismissed. According to the appellant, the Railway Tribunal committed error in dismissing his application in spite of the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 and A2. According to him, the first document i.e., entry in the General Diary marked as Ex.A1 indicates that the Railway booking clerk at Ravindrakhani station informed the police about the incident. Ex.A2 reveals that the Station Superintendent informed about the accident to the police on the basis of Ex.A1.
2 SSRN,J
CMA No.341 of 2018
The Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on the report of D.R.M. wherein, it was mentioned that there was no such accident, but the Tribunal ought to have conceded the evidence and also the Judgments relied on by the appellant herein. Thereby, the appellant sought for setting aside the order of Tribunal and sought for compensation.
3. As per the order which is under challenge, it appears that the appellant filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and sought for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- together with costs and interest as compensation for the injuries caused to him in an alleged accident. According to the averments made in the application and as per the award, it shows that the appellant has claimed that on 29-09-2010, with a view to see his grand mother, he proceeded to Mancherial in a bus and reached railway station, Mancherial and boarded Bhagyanagar train after purchasing necessary ticket but on the middle of the way near Ravindrakhani station, he accidentally fell from the running train due to heavy rush and jerks of train. He suffered grievous injury apart from ruptures on the body. He was immediately shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, his right leg was amputated below the knee, thereby, he sought for compensation for the above said injury.
3 SSRN,J
CMA No.341 of 2018
4. The application filed by the appellant herein was opposed by the respondent/railway. A written statement was filed disputing the averments made by the appellant. Even though it is admitted in the statement that as per the General Diary at Government Railway police, Bellampally that booking clerk received message that unknown male person aged about 24 years received injuries to the right leg at the end of the station and was shifted in 108 Ambulance, it does not substantiate the version of the appellant herein that he suffered the injury during the course of his journey on Bhagyanagar express. The respondent/railway denied other averments of the application and sought for dismissal of the application.
5. The Railway Tribunal framed two points for consideration. The appellant herein was examined as AW.1 and marked 4 documents on his behalf. None was examined by the respondent but the report of D.R.M. was marked as Ext.R1. The Railway Claims Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellant herein and while giving a finding that there is no evidence to believe that the appellant received injuries in a train journey, dismissed his application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.
4 SSRN,J
CMA No.341 of 2018
7. Now the points for consideration are :
1. Whether the appellant really traveled in
Bhagyanagar express as claimed by him ?
2. Whether the appellant received injuries in the
alleged untoward incident, resulting amputation ?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation as prayed for ?
8. It is the specific case of the appellant that he boarded Bhagyanagar express at Mancherial Railway station and while the train was on its way, he accidentally fell down due to rush and jerks in the train and suffered injuries. Except the oral evidence of appellant, who is examined as AW.1, there is no eye-witness to the alleged accident. According to the material placed before this Court, it is quite clear that the booking clerk at Bellampally received information that a person was lying at the end of the railway station with injuries and thereafter, the appellant was shifted to hospital in Ambulance. Exs.A1 and A2 never revealed that AW.1 fell from a running train nor there is any evidence to show that somebody witnessed the fall of the appellant from the train. The appellant claims that he boarded Bhagyanagar express. The material on record clearly shows that the presence of AW.1 with an injury to his right leg was at 7.45 p.m., on 29-09-2010. According to the material including Exs.A1 and A2, he was found 5 SSRN,J CMA No.341 of 2018 before 8.00 p.m., on 29-09-2010 whereas, the Bhagyanagar Express left the station at 9.16 p.m., The appellant could not place any other evidence that he fell from the train and he was first noticed after 9.16 p.m., i.e., after Bhagyanagar Express left the railway station. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that D.R.M. report which is marked as Ext.R1 was prepared nearly after one year of the accident. Therefore, it might have been prepared in such a way to escape the liability to pay compensation to the appellant herein. AW.1 was cross- examined by the respondent. In the said cross-examination, it is elicited that he started his journey at 1.00 p.m., from Kadam to Mancherial and from there to Bellampally by train. He did not file any ticket to prove that he actually boarded Bhagyanagar Express. As per the General Diary entry, it shows that the appellant was found at the end of the railway station which is prior to the departure of Bhagyanagar Express from that particular Railway station. There is every possibility of AW.1 receiving injuries in the manner otherwise than stated in the application and in his evidence before the Tribunal and his filing an application for compensation thereby, the Tribunal rightly dismissed his application.
6 SSRN,J
CMA No.341 of 2018
9. The learned counsel relied on Judgments : In "Shaik Mahboob Basha and others V. Union of India1", "Union of India Vs. Parameswaranpillai Died and another2". The learned counsel also placed reliance on Judgments in "Union of India Vs. Balak Ram Joshi3", and "Union of India V. B.Koddekar and others4".
10. But the above judgments are not applicable to this case since the appellant failed to establish that he was a passenger of Bhagyanagar Express, and the injury caused due to fall from that train, thereby, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No Costs.
__________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 25.08.2022 PLV 1 2016 ACJ 1882 2 2012 SCC online Ker 31824 = 2012(4) ker L.J.82 3 LAWS (ALL)‐2012‐2‐304 4 2002 (4) ALT 310 (D.B.) 7 SSRN,J CMA No.341 of 2018