Judgment :- CMAMP No.653 of 2007 was filed to vacate the interim order dated 26.2.2007 made in CMAMP No.285 of 2007 in CMA No.151 of 2007. When the application is taken up for hearing, the counsel on record made a request for disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is being disposed of finally. 2. Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant-Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, had pointed out that the incident was not reported at all and the same had not seen the light for about six months and the said delay had not been explained. The counsel also pointed out to Exs.A6 and A7 and would maintain that both these documents are contradictory. The counsel also would maintain that in the light of the evidence available on record, it is doubtful whether respondent-applicant had taken treatment either in private hospital or in Government hospital. The counsel also would further point out that even if the episode of the respondent-applicant to be taken as true, even as per the schedule this would fall under entry No.28 at the best and not entry No.22 and hence at any rate the quantum of compensation fixed is on the higher side. The counsel also further pointed out that though the Railway Claims Tribunal may follow its own procedure, it would be just and convenient if the list of witnesses and list of documents are shown by way of appendix of evidence atleast at the end of the order and since the same is not being shown, the parties are put to inconvenience. 3. Per contra, Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent-applicant would maintain that the mere delay pointed out would not seriously alter the situation since none of the facts are in dispute and even otherwise though clear evidence was let in by the respondent-applicant, no evidence had been placed by the appellant-Railways and in the light of the same, the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal to be confirmed. The counsel also pointed out that entry No.22 or item No.22 had been correctly applied and this was done by the Railway Claims Tribunal not only being guided by the certificates placed before the Tribunal concerned, but also by seeing the injured and unless otherwise contrary is established, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal concerned cannot be said to be on higher side. 4. Heard the counsel on record. 5. The appellant herein is the respondent in OAA No.28 of 2004 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, hereinafter in short referred to as Tribunal for the purpose of convenience, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. The respondent herein as applicant filed the said application under Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall. It is his specific case that on 30.5.2003 he traveled with journey ticket bearing No.42194877 from Madurai to Nellore and boarded train No.6093 Chennai-Lucknow Express at Chennai Railway Station and when the train reached Nellore Railway Station at 8.45 AM on 31.5.2003 and when the injured applicant came to the door with a view to get down, due to sudden jerk of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train and sustained serious injuries. 6. The appellant herein resisted the said claim by filing a written statement and denying the very incident itself on the ground that no untoward incident had been reported by the Guard of the train on 31.5.2003 and though the alleged incident had taken place on 31.5.2003, the statement of applicant was recorded on 19.12.2003. It was also pleaded that they had submitted that the injured applicant was admitted to Government Hospital, Nellore without any reference by GRP of the Railways and further since the wound certificate is of 18.12.2003, whereas the incident had taken place on 31.5.2003, the burden is on the respondent-applicant to prove that the accident was due to the alleged untoward incident. 7. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, the Tribunal had settled the following issues: 1. 7. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, the Tribunal had settled the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.6093 Chennai-Lucknow Express, traveling from Chennai to Nellore on 31.5.2003? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2 lakhs as compensation? 4. To what relief? 8. Respondent herein as applicant had examined himself as AW.1 through his sworn affidavit dated 24.11.2005 and further marked Exs.A1 to A7. Appellant-Railways had not examined any one. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that as for the injury amputation of left leg below knee joint with a stump exceeding more than 5" provides compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- as a scheduled injury under item No.22, the other injuries being unscheduled injuries, the Tribunal, considered reasonable compensation to be awarded as Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the respondent-applicant was awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- and thus the application was allowed with certain further directions. 9. In the light of the respective contentions of the parties, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal to be set aside or to be modified or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? POINT NO.1: 10. For the purpose of convenience, the parties, hereinafter would be referred to as applicant and respondent as shown in OAA No.28 of 2004 on the file of the Tribunal. 11. Section 18 of the Act deals with procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal. As can be seen from the nature of the order, the oral and documentary evidence as such had been discussed there is no appendix of evidence. The appendix of evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record would be given for the purpose of convenience and in view of the same this Court observes that it would be just and proper hereinafter to furnish the appendix of evidence for the purpose of convenience while making the orders by the Tribunal. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect in the light of the language employed in Section 18 of the Act aforesaid. 12. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect in the light of the language employed in Section 18 of the Act aforesaid. 12. Be that as it may, the main ground of attack is the discrepancy if any between Exs.A6 and A7 and also non-reporting of the alleged incident by the applicant for about six months period. 13. The injured applicant was examined as AW.1, who had stated that he was traveling with a valid train ticket bearing No.42194877 dated 30.5.2003 from Madurai to Nellore. The certified copy of the said ticket was marked as Ex.A5. The said ticket was not seriously controverted by the respondent-Railways. The statement before the police is Ex.A4. Ex.A5 is the statement of the wife of the applicant, who stated that her husband was injured and he had traveled with the same ticket from Madurai to Nellore. Hence, in the light of the same, positive findings had been recorded that the injured applicant was a bona fide passenger of a valid ticket from Madurai to Nellore on 31.5.2003. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said finding being one recorded on appreciation of evidence of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the same need not be disturbed. Accordingly the said finding is hereby confirmed. 14. The injured applicant also had stated that when the train reached Nellore Railway Station at 8.45 AM, he came to the door with a view to get down from the train and due to sudden jerks of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down, resulting in amputation of his left leg below knee joint and other multiple injuries. This witness also stated that after the fall, he went under the wheels of the train and got his left leg completely crushed and also sustained few other injuries on his body and that he was taken to Government Hospital, Nellore, where he was admitted as an inpatient, and subsequently he was shifted to St. John's Hospital on the same night. This witness also stated that these facts were once again had been recorded by way of statement by G.R.P. on 19.12.2003 and this witness also stated relating to the undergoing amputation of left leg below knee joint at St. John's Hospital, Santhapeta, Nellore by one Dr. John's Hospital on the same night. This witness also stated that these facts were once again had been recorded by way of statement by G.R.P. on 19.12.2003 and this witness also stated relating to the undergoing amputation of left leg below knee joint at St. John's Hospital, Santhapeta, Nellore by one Dr. Raghu Ramaiah and he also stated that he was inpatient in the above hospital upto 9.6.2003. This witness produced a Medical Certificate to the said effect. The Government Doctor, who initially treated him on 31.5.2003 at D.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore, had issued a wound certificate on 18.12.2003 and this witness also had given certain details how he became unconscious and how he had regained conscious and the other aspects. Ex.A3 is the statement of the wife of the injured applicant, Exs.A1 and A2 are the G.D. entries, Ex.A6 is the wound certificate issued by Dr. Aparna of DSR Hospital on 18.12.2003 and Ex.A7 is the amputation certificate issued by Dr. Raghu Ramaiah of St. John's Hospital. In the light of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the light of the positive evidence of the applicant as AW.1 and also Exs.A1 to A7 and in the absence of any contra evidence placed by the Railways, the stand taken by the applicant to be relied upon and accordingly warded the compensation as specified above. 15. It is no doubt true that there is some delay. Though the incident had taken place on 31.5.2003, the statement of applicant was recorded on 19.12.2003. It is there in the evidence of AW.1 that the applicant was taking treatment for sometime and it could have been for certain reasons the prompt action could not have been taken by AW.1, but by that itself the stand taken by AW.1 cannot be disbelieved especially no contra evidence as such had been placed on the side of the Railways. 16. Certain submissions were made relating to the entry or item of the schedule, which would be attracted to an injury of this nature. In the light of absence of contra evidence, the discrepancy pointed out, if any in between Exs.A6 and A7, would not assume much importance. Ex.A7 the amputation certificate being self-explanatory, the same need not be disbelieved. 16. Certain submissions were made relating to the entry or item of the schedule, which would be attracted to an injury of this nature. In the light of absence of contra evidence, the discrepancy pointed out, if any in between Exs.A6 and A7, would not assume much importance. Ex.A7 the amputation certificate being self-explanatory, the same need not be disbelieved. In the light of the same, item No.22 of Part II of schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 had been properly applied. Hence, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel of the appellant-Railways that entry No.28 or item No.28 would be attracted cannot be sustained especially in the light of the evidence of AW.1 and also Ex.A7 in particular. Hence, the said contention is hereby negatived. 17. Except the above submissions, the counsel representing the respective parties had advanced no other submissions. POINT NO.2: 18 Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.