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
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
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
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
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
