Civil Misc. Appeal challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim for an accidental fall from a running train. The court held the claimant was a bona fide passenger and awarded Rs.5,60,000 compensation.
Set aside the Tribunal's order and awarded compensation of Rs.5,60,000 to the appellant-applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER Civil Miscellan eou s Appeal No.9 0 0 of 2 0 1 2
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is filed by the appellant-applicant, challenging the order, dated 16.03.2011, passed in O.A.A.No.174 of 2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellant-applicant claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ - for the injuries suffered by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from a running train, was dismissed.
2 . Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3 . The learned counsel for the appellant-applicant would contend that the Tribunal erroneously held that the appellant-applicant was not having a valid journey ticket and not a bona fide passenger of train No.571 Secunderabad – Mahabubnagar Passenger travelling from Shadnagar to Jadcherla on 10.01.2006. There is ample evidence on record to substantiate the same and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and grant compensation to the appellant-applicant as claimed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant relied on a judgment of this Court in Sh aik Mah boob Bash a an d ot h er s Vs. Un ion of I n dia1 .
4 . On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways would contend that the appellant-applicant
1 2016 (1) ALT 1
‐2‐
possessed a Season Pass, which was valid from 21.11.2005 to 20.12.2005. The subject accident occurred on 10.01.2006. Hence, the appellant-applicant was not having a valid journey ticket as on the date of the subject accident. The Tribunal rightly held that the appellant-applicant was not a bona fide passenger of train No.571 Secunderabad – Mahabubnagar Passenger travelling from Shadnagar to Jadcherla on 10.01.2006. There are no merits in the appeal and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order under challenge.
5 . In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows:
Poin t No.1 : -
6 . To substantiate the claim of the appellant-applicant, the appellant-applicant got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1-Message copy, Ex.A.2-O.P.Card of NIMS, Ex.A.3-O.P.Chits, Ex.A.4-Discharge Card of Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and Ex.A.5O.P.Ticket of A.P.V.V.P. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1-copy of Control message was marked.
7 . The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways vehemently contended that the appellant-applicant possessed a
‐3‐
Season Pass No.47322034 which was valid from 21.11.2005 to 20.12.2005. The subject accident occurred on 10.01.2006. Hence, the appellant-applicant was not having a valid journey ticket on the date of the subject accident. But the specific case of the appellantapplicant is that he purchased a journey ticket and was holding it in his left hand, which was cut off in the subject accident. When the left hand of the appellant-applicant came under the wheels of the train and was cut off below the shoulder and when the appellant-applicant suffered fractures to his ribs and other parts of his body, there is every possibility of the journey ticket being lost. Merely because the appellant-applicant possessed an expired Season Pass, it cannot be held that the he was not having a valid journey ticket.
8 . In Shaik Mahboob’s case supra relied by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, this Court held as follows: -
“ Th e fin din gs of t h e Tr ibu n al t h at t h e opin ion of t h e pan ch as at t h e t im e of in qu est h as n o basis an d t h at it can n ot be t r eat ed as a su bst an t ive piece of eviden ce is n ot cor r ect . Th e pr esu m pt ion t h at gen er ally ever y passen ger h olds a j ou r n ey t ick et u n less con t r ar y is pr oved is applicable t o t h e case. Adm it t edly , t h e dead body of t h e deceased w as dr agged t o a dist an ce of 3 0 sleeper s fr om t h e place w h er e t h e fall h ad t ak en place. His ar t icles m igh t h ave scat t er ed. Railw ay s did n ot m ar k t h e copies of r ou gh sk et ch an d obser vat ion r epor t of t h e scen e of acciden t pr epar ed by police t o sh ow as t o w h er e t h e var iou s ar t icles t h at w er e fou n d at t h e scen e w er e ly in g. Th e ex plan at ion of t h e applican t s t h at t h e j ou r n ey t ick et m igh t h ave been lost can , t h er efor e, be accept ed. A du t y is en j oin ed u pon officer s of Railw ay s t o r egu lat e t h e en t r y of passen ger s in t o t h e com par t m en t s of t h e t r ain s an d t h e Railw ay s h av e su fficien t m ech an ism an d m an pow er t o r egu lat e t h e sam e. I t can , t h er efor e, be pr esu m ed t h at ever y per son t r avellin g in a t r ain possesses a v alid t ick et .”
9 . As held in the above citation, a person/ s is/ are not allowed to enter the platform of the railway station or to board a compartment of a train without there being a valid platform/ journey ticket. All the railway stations are being guarded by security personnel round the
‐4‐
clock. Under these circumstances, when there is specific evidence of the injured appellant-applicant with regard to his possessing a valid journey ticket on the date of the subject accident, no different view can be taken. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the appellant-applicant was having a valid journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of train No.571 Secunderabad – Mahabubnagar Passenger travelling from Shadnagar to Jadcherla on 10.01.2006.
Poin t No.2 : -
1 0 . The specific case of the appellant-applicant is that he suffered amputation of his left hand below the shoulder in the subject train accident occurred on 10.01.2006. He also stated in his evidence that he was holding a valid journey ticket in his left hand and made an attempt to board the subject train, but he accidentally slipped and fell down between the platform and the train due to jerks and the momentum of the train. Resultantly, his left hand came under the wheels of the train and was cut below the shoulder. He also stated that he suffered fractures to his left leg etc., in the subject accident. The appellant-applicant filed medical record of NIMS, Hyderabad, and Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, to substantiate the same. R.W.2M.J.Ratna Kumar is an eye-witness to the subject untoward incident. He stated that he saw a person suffering injuries while trying to board the moving train on the date of the subject accident. In Ex.A.2-O.P.Card of NIMS, there is a mention of amputation of the left hand of the appellant-applicant. There is also other evidence to substantiate the same. As per the provision of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, compensation is not payable to the self-inflicted injuries. Neither there was deliberate attempt on the part of the
‐5‐
appellant-applicant to suffer injuries in the subject accident nor was he negligent while attempting to board the subject train. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the appellantapplicant sustained amputation of his left hand below the shoulder in the subject train accident on 10.01.2006. It is untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.571 Secunderabad – Mahabubnagar Passenger. The findings of the Tribunal are not in consonance with the evidence on record. There is infirmity in the order under challenge and the same is liable to be set aside.
1 1 . Since the injury suffered by the appellant-applicant falls under Part III of the Schedule of the Railways Act, 1989, the appellantapplicant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ -.
1 2 . In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order, dated 16.03.2011, passed in OAA No.174 of 2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is set aside. The appellant-applicant is awarded a compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ -. The respondents-Railways is directed to deposit the awarded compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ - before the Tribunal within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the appellant-applicant is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount, from the date of this order till realisation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
26th October, 2018 Bvv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant-applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.571 traveling from Shadnagar to Jadcherla on 10.01.2006?
Whether the appellant-applicant sustained amputation of his left hand in the subject train accident?
Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable and liable to be set aside?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shaik Mahboob Bashan and Others Vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶21
Sh aik Mah boob Bash a an d ot h er s Vs. Un ion of I n dia
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Appellant-Applicant
The Respondent-Railways
Dr. Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
