Telangana High Court

Mohammad Ziyaoddin vs The Union Of India on 25 August, 2022

Bench: Sambasivarao Naidu

     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.