JUDGMENT This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, is preferred against the order, dated 16-2-2006, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.A. No.333 of 1999. 2. The respondent filed the claim before the Tribunal, stating that he has fallen down from Train No.123, Rapalle-Guntur Passenger on 29-11-1999, at Tenali Railway Station, and that his legs have come under the wheels of the train. It was alleged that the legs were cut and separated, and later on, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur, by the Railway Police for treatment. He claimed compensation stating that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident. 3. The appellant opposed the claim, disputing the very incident, as well as the fall of the respondent from the train. Doubt was expressed, as to the identity of the passenger. It was also alleged that even otherwise, the accident has taken place, on account of the negligence of the respondent, and it cannot be attributed to any untoward incident. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. Through an order dated 6-1-2006, the Judicial member took the view that the respondent sustained injuries, resulting in amputation of legs in an untoward incident, and awarded a sum of Rs 4,00,000/- as compensation, as per item 3 of Part II of Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The Technical Member, however, took a different view. He held that the respondent is not entitled for any compensation, since no ticket was recovered from him, and that the name in the hospital records is different from that of the respondent. I n accordance with the relevant procedure, the matter was referred to the Chairman of the Tribunal. Through the order dated 16-2-2006, the Chairman agreed with the Judicial Member. 4. Sri S.H.A. Choudary, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, submits that there is any amount of uncertainties, as regards the identity of the person, who is said to have sustained injuries in an accident at Tenali, and that the respondent did not clarify the same. Learned counsel points out that undisputedly, the name of the person, who has undergone treatment in the Government Hospital, was shown in, the hospital records as "Fareed Samuel", whereas, the name of the respondent is "Shaik Fareed Basha". Learned counsel points out that undisputedly, the name of the person, who has undergone treatment in the Government Hospital, was shown in, the hospital records as "Fareed Samuel", whereas, the name of the respondent is "Shaik Fareed Basha". He further contends that no ticket was recovered from the respondent, and therefore, he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. 5. Sri Pottigari Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that undisputedly an accident took place at Tenali, and it is the Railway Police, who admitted the respondent herein in the Government Hospital, Guntur. He contends that the ticket of the respondent slipped away, and when his life itself was in peril, it was not expected of him, to make efforts to preserve his ticket. 6. This is one of the rare cases, where the two Members of the Tribunal differed in their opinion, and the matter was referred to the Chairman. 7. In his claim statement, the respondent pleaded that he fell from the train, when it was moving, and had come under the wheels. Though the appellant disputed the very occurrence of the accident, during the course of trial, it emerged that the guard of the train, who was examined as R.W.1, himself deposed that after the train started, on a loud cry from the passengers, the train was stopped, and it was noticed that a person was found on the off side, with his legs cut. He further stated that the Government Railway Police tendered first aid, and thereafter, shifted him to the Government Hospital at Guntur. 8. The Technical Member entertained a serious doubt, as to the identity of the person, who sustained the injuries. The basis for his doubt was that no ticket was recovered from the respondent, and that in the hospital records, the name of the patient was shown as "Fareed Samuel". With a view to satisfy itself, this Court summoned the entire record, at the stage of admission itself, and perused it. EX.A-1 is a certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, GRP, Tenali. It was stated that a person by name "Shaik Fareed Basha" slipped and fell down from Train No.123 on 29-11-1999 at Tenali Railway Station. It is further stated that the legs of the passenger were cut and he was referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for necessary treatment. EX.A-1 is a certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, GRP, Tenali. It was stated that a person by name "Shaik Fareed Basha" slipped and fell down from Train No.123 on 29-11-1999 at Tenali Railway Station. It is further stated that the legs of the passenger were cut and he was referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for necessary treatment. EX.A-2 is the admission slip of the hospital. The Xerox copy of the entire case sheet of the person, who was referred to for treatment to the Government Hospital, was taken as document No.4. It does not appear to have been given exhibit marking, on the ground that it is only a Xerox copy. However, it formed part of the record of the Tribunal. A perusal of it discloses that the endorsement made by the Medical Officer, who admitted the patient, reads as under: "Alleged sustained injury by falling from running train at Tenali Railway Station at 10.30 a.m. on 29-11-1999. Patient is semi-conscious, not answering;- (1) A crush injury of left leg traumatic, amputated up to half of the leg exposing muscles, tendous and bone. (2) A crush injury of right leg was completely amputated up to ankle." From this, it is evident that the person, who was treated in the hospital is the one, who sustained cut injuries at Tenali Railway Station. While in EX.A-1 , the name of the patient was shown as "Shaik Fareed Basha", the respondent herein, in the hospital record, it was written as "Shaik Fareed Samuel" .In fact, there is some overwriting upon it. The name appears to have been written in a hurry, on the instructions of some one, who was not properly acquainted with the injured. Further, the patient was in unconscious condition. 9. When there did not exist any doubt as to the occurrence of the accident, or the name of the person who sustained, injuries, mere discrepancy in the hospital records cannot be a ground to deny compensation, to the victim. It is not as if the legs of the respondent came to be amputated, at a later point of time. They were separated in the accident itself. The Railways had issued a Travel Concession Certificate to the respondent, and the name is correctly described therein. It is not as if the legs of the respondent came to be amputated, at a later point of time. They were separated in the accident itself. The Railways had issued a Travel Concession Certificate to the respondent, and the name is correctly described therein. The fact that the ticket was missing from the respondent, hardly makes any difference, once there did not exist any dispute, as regards the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained therein by the respondent. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. 10. The CMA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.