Telangana High Court
T.Venugopal, vs The Union Of India, on 29 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1066 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred against order dated 08.07.2011 passed in O.A.A.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad ('the Tribunal', for brevity).
2. Appellant herein submitted application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, contending that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident that took place on 09.12.2002 while returning to Mandamarri as a passenger in Ramagiri Passenger train. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. Respondent herein, i.e., Railways resisted the claim of appellant disputing alleged incident and specifically stating that there was no untoward incident of any passenger falling from the said train and sustaining injuries. Claim petition was dismissed by Tribunal through judgment dated 20.12.2005 against which, appellant herein preferred appeal to this Court and this Court, on a consideration of material, remitted back the case to Tribunal by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence and get the certificate of S.I., Mandamarri, marked as a document and directing Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. On such remand, Tribunal examined the case and also permitted parties to adduce additional evidence and on the basis of evidence of both parties, again dismissed the application holding that claimant failed to prove that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident falling within the definition of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, aggrieved by which, present appeal is preferred.
SRK, J CMA No.1066 of 2011 2
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for appellant mainly contended that Tribunal erred in dismissing the application by adopting a negative theory, though there is ample evidence to show that appellant lost his both legs in an untoward incident. He submitted that immediately after incident, injured was referred to Government Hospital, Mandamarri, and from there, he was referred to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, and there was delay in informing the railway authorities and that delay was properly explained with convincing evidence, but Tribunal erroneously dismissed the application holding that there was no untoward incident. He further submitted that Railways never raised any objection with regard to correctness and genuineness of journey ticket, as pleaded by appellant and no witnesses are examined on behalf of Railways questioning validity of journey ticket, but Tribunal surprisingly dismissed the application also on the ground that appellant did not produce journey ticket to show that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident.
5. On the other hand, advocate for Railways submitted that when the matter was remitted back with a direction to consider the material afresh, Tribunal has every right to examine each and every aspect and it has rightly discarded the claim for non-production of journey ticket and that there are no grounds to interfere with order of Tribunal. He further submitted that claimant has miserably failed in proving that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident on 09.12.2002 due to negligence of Railways and therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
SRK, J CMA No.1066 of 2011 3
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the order dated 08.07.2011 passed in O.A.A.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, is legal, proper and correct?
POINT:
7. It is the specific case of appellant that on 09.12.2002, he was returning from Sirpurkagaznagar to Mandamarri by Ramagiri Passenger train, by purchasing a journey ticket bearing No.05024. According to appellant, there was heavy rush in train and that he stood before bathroom of the bogie and when train was about to reach Mandamarri Railway Station, some passengers came before bathroom with an intent to get down from train and that the door of said bogie was not properly tightened and, therefore, door suddenly closed which dragged claimant out of the train and in the process, he fell down from running train just before Mandamarri Railway Station, which resulted in his two legs went under the running wheels of train and he sustained grievious injuries.
8. To substantiate this allegation, claimant examined four witnesses. Claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and in his chief affidavit, he stated that there was heavy rush in train on that day and that he was forced to stand near the bathroom of the bogie and when train reached Mandamarri Railway Station, some passengers came from inside the bogie with an intent to get down at Mandamarri Railway Station and in the process, some passengers pushed him out of train and he accidentally fell down from running train. This is SRK, J CMA No.1066 of 2011 4 what he stated in his chief examination itself. His specific plea is that he purchased ticket from Sirpurkagaznagar to Mandamarri. So, according to his own version, his place of destination is Mandamarri. When the train halted at Mandamarri and when claimant was standing near bathroom of bogie, he should have alighted first and the very version that passengers from inside the bogie came and pushed him is highly unnatural and not convincing. If claimant is not a passenger to get down at Mandamarri, then his version of pushing would have some bearing and meaning. But, when he has to get down at Mandamarri, some passengers inside the bogie pushing him out is highly improbable which was rightly considered by Tribunal in evaluating evidence of claimants. When such improbability is there, production of journey ticket or evidence in support of purchase of journey ticket is very much essential. Other witnesses, i.e., A.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are only witnesses to corroborate the testimony of A.W.1 (claimant) and when the evidence of claimant himself is not convincing, no weight can be attached to evidence of A.Ws.2, 3 and 4, being corroborating witnesses. These aspects were twice considered by Tribunal and recorded a finding that claimant miserably failed in showing that he sustained injuries to his both legs in an untoward incident. Simply because some ticket number is given in claim petition, it cannot be treated that claimant was a bona fide passenger of Ramagiri passenger train, particularly, version of claimant is not convincing. It is for claimant to produce relevant material to show that he actually traveled in train on the date of alleged incident and without substantiating it, he cannot contend that Railways are liable to pay compensation and attribute any SRK, J CMA No.1066 of 2011 5 negligence on the part of Railways. On a scrutiny of material, I am of the considered view that Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by Tribunal.
9. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed being de void of merit. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J 06th September, 2016.
Bvv