Remanded

Union of India v. Garnepudi Sunitha

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011CMA/4202/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal and cross objections, the High Court quashed the Railway Claims Tribunal's order granting compensation for injuries sustained in a train accident. The Court remanded the matter, holding that the Tribunal erred in relying on unauthenticated medical documents without examining the concerned doctor.

What did the court decide?

Order of Railway Claims Tribunal set aside; matter remanded for procedure to examine competent doctor; no order as to costs.

Union of India Vs Garnepudi Sunitha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

+CIVIL MISCELLANOEUS APPEAL No.4202 OF 2004 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.68356 OF 2004

¶3

%Dated 22-03-2011

¶4

C.M.A. No. 4202 of 2004
Between :
# Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. - - -	Appellant/ Respondent.
VERSUS
$ Garnepudi Sunitha, W/o. Ravi Kumar, Aged 24 Years, Agricultural Coolie, R/o. SC Colony, Tadigiripadu village,
Penumarru post, Kolluru Mandal, Guntur
District. - - -	Respondent/ Applicant.
Cx. Obj. (SR) No.68356 OF 2004
Between:
#Garnepudi Sunitha. --- AND	Appellant/ Applicant.
$The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad. ---
Respondent/
	Respondent.

¶5

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri S. Chandra Sekhar

¶6

^ Counsel for Respondent. : Sri B.H.R. Chowdary < GIST : > HEAD NOTE :

¶7

? Cases referred : ---

¶8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.22-03-2011.

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4202 OF 2004

¶12

Between:

¶13

The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Garnepudi Sunitha. --Respondent/ Applicant.

¶14

CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.68356 OF 2004

¶15

Between: Garnepudi Sunitha. --Appellant/ Applicant.

¶16

The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --Respondent/ Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶19

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4202 OF 2004

¶20

¶21

CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.68356 OF 2004

¶22

COMMON JUDGEMENT:

¶23

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 11-08-2004, passed in O.A.A. No.117 of 2001 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries by the applicant in a train accident at Vejendla railway station, allowing the claim.

¶24

2. The appellant is the Respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.117 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal.

¶25

3. The facts of the case are as follows :

¶26

The applicant on 26-04-200 at 11-00 a.m. holding valid journey ticket boarded train No.124 Guntur – Repalle passenger and while the train was stopped at Vajendla railway station, she got down from the train with a view to fetch water and while she was boarding the train later due to sudden jerks, she fell down in between the platform and the train and sustained grievous injuries as the train ran over her left hand and left leg which resulted in amputation of the same. Thereafter, the train was stopped by its Guard and she was taken for necessary medical treatment and her left leg was amputated above her knee joint and her left hand was amputated below its shoulder joint and she was a bona fide passenger of the train, hence the application.

¶27

4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicant and further claiming that in any case, the act of the applicant would not come within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act and ultimately prayed to dismiss the claim of the applicant.

¶28

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal :

¶29

1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.124 passenger traveling from Guntur to Repalle on 26-04-2001??

¶30

2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vejendla railway station with water bottle?

¶31

3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident?

¶32

4) To what relief?

¶33

6. On behalf of the applicant, he got examined herself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 which happened to be a copy of message issued by the concerned Station Superintendent, a copy of out patient chit and the original ticket. On behalf of the respondent, the

¶34

B. Eswaraiah, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked the document as Ex.R-1.

¶35

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant and granted the relief as prayed for, further, directing the respondent to deposit the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant within two months from the date of order failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶36

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that Ex.A-1 which is the copy of a message said to be issued by the Station Superintendent is to the effect that a lady passenger aged about 35 years fell down from 124 passenger train at Vejendla railway station and her left leg and left hand were cut and she was sent to the District Medical Officer, Tenali, for necessary treatment and further Ex.A-2 is a copy of out patient ticket-cum-medico legal certificate which provides that the applicant received the said injuries. Further the message issued by the Station Superintendent is not sufficient to establish the injuries received by the applicant. Further as Ex.A-2 does not contain the signature of any concerned doctor, the same also cannot be taken into consideration to uphold the claim of the applicant. Further the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the order is liable to be set aside.

¶37

9. No dispute is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent with regards to the other findings given in the order.

¶38

10. Therefore it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether Exs.A-1 and A-2 are sufficient to uphold the claim of the applicant with regards to the injuries said to

¶39

be received by her?

¶40

2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and its order is tenable or not?

¶41

11. Point No.1: Exs.A-1 and A-2 contain the said information. Further, it also appears that concerned Sub-Inspector of police Government Railway Police, Guntur, issued true copies of their originals. Further, without examining the concerned doctor with reference to relevant record, the question of establishing the injuries said to be received by the applicant would not arise at all, in other words, Ex.A-1 is not adequate to come to a definite conclusion in that context. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent it is not found in Ex.A-2 that the concerned doctor examined its originals affixed with necessary seal. Therefore, now it is difficult to say that Ex.A-2 is authenticated document to be relied upon for the purpose of upholding the claim of the applicant with regard to the injuries received by her and the corresponding compensation to be paid to her?

¶42

12. The medical record or document can be established only by examining a doctor who is competent to speak about the contents therein and not otherwise. It is not proper on the part of the Tribunal to allow such applications just basing upon such medical documents with reference to relevant injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has to see in such matters that the concerned or competent doctors are examined to establish such documents.

¶43

13. Ultimately, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for the purpose of giving opportunity to the applicant to adduce necessary evidence to establish the claim of the applicant about the injuries said to be received by her and the corresponding compensation to be paid to her and then to give opportunity to the respondent to adduce rebuttal evidence. The

¶44

Tribunal has to dispose of the matter independently after adducing necessary evidence. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

For the foregoing reasons the Cross Objections (SR) No.68356 of 2004 filed by the applicant is hereby closed.

¶46

___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 22-03-2011.

¶47

Note: Mark L.R. Copy. B/o.Dsh.

Union of India v. Garnepudi Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Garnepudi Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Chilukuri Padmaja

The Union of India Vs C. Bujjaiah

K. Sulochana Vs Mr. Bhagavandas

The Union of India Vs v.Srinivas Reddy

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburu Durga Rao

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburupeda Narasimha Rao