Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 384 (TS)

Azeem, Afsar Khan v. Union Of India

2022-06-10

V.VENKATA RAMANA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the applicant/injured, against the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A. II (U) No.181 of 2010, dated 26.04.2016. 2. The appellant herein has filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs from the respondent-Railways on account of the injury sustained by him in an untoward incident alleged to have been occurred on 30.04.2010, which was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for appellant that the Railway Claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of the applicant and only relying on the evidence of RW-1, rejected the claim of applicant for compensation on the ground that the applicant/appellant fell down while trying to catch up a running train, which is not even part of the pleadings of the Railways. It is further urged that RW-1 is not the eyewitness to the incident though he was present as a Guard of the train. It is further urged by the counsel for appellant that the Railway Tribunal has erred in observing that the friends of the appellant were not examined and therefore, the evidence of appellant cannot be believed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways contended that the original journey ticket was not produced by the appellant and therefore, the contention of the appellant that he purchased the ticket, cannot be believed. It is further contended that the evidence of RW-1 clearly reveals that the untoward incident had occurred due to the appellant trying to catch a running train, as such, it can be termed as “self-inflected injury” and therefore, the respondent-Railways need not pay any compensation. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the application for compensation was filed by the appellant/injured alleging that on 30.04.2010, he along with his friends Jafar and Balu went to Umdanagar Railway Station, purchased a single computer journey ticket bearing No.80292306 to Jamai Osmania and boarded the train. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the application for compensation was filed by the appellant/injured alleging that on 30.04.2010, he along with his friends Jafar and Balu went to Umdanagar Railway Station, purchased a single computer journey ticket bearing No.80292306 to Jamai Osmania and boarded the train. It is further contended in the application by the appellant that he stood near the door as he could not get the seat since the bogie was loaded with vegetable baskets and vendors and due to sudden jolts, he accidentally slipped and fell down at Dabirpura railway station, the wheels of the bogie ran over his right leg causing traumatic amputation, for which, he was shifted to Osmania General hospital in 108 ambulance, where, he was treated. The photocopy of the journey ticket of the three persons was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, but it could not be marked. 7. The written statement as well as the DRM report disputes the claim of the appellant for compensation. The specific plea raised by the Railways is that the applicant was not the bonafide passenger and that the injuries caused were not on account of any untoward incident. But, contrary to the said contentions, the written statement also disclose that as per the version of the Booking Supervisor of Dabirpura Railway Station, the Home Guard, who was on duty, informed that one boy aged 17 years, had fallen down from Passenger Train No.526 at 17.30 hours on Platform No.1 and his right leg was cut and the injured was alive. 8. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues : “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train in question on the said train ? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident ? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for ? 4. To what relief ?” 9. On behalf of the applicant, AWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. AW-1 is the applicant/injured, AW-2 is Dr.G.Rama Krishna Reddy, who treated the injured and AW-3 is the Booking Clerk of the Railway Department. On behalf of the Railways, the Railway Guard was examined as RW-1 and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 10. On behalf of the applicant, AWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. AW-1 is the applicant/injured, AW-2 is Dr.G.Rama Krishna Reddy, who treated the injured and AW-3 is the Booking Clerk of the Railway Department. On behalf of the Railways, the Railway Guard was examined as RW-1 and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 10. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of AWs.1 to 3 and by believing the evidence of the Railway Guard i.e. RW-1 and by relying on Ex.R-2/the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report, dismissed the claim application of the applicant by recording a finding that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger of the Passenger Train bearing No.526 and the injuries sustained by the appellant were self-inflicted injuries as he tried to catch the running train. It is also the finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal that there is no corroborative evidence to show/prove that the appellant was a bonafide passenger, as none of his friends were examined before it. 11. On perusal of the entire evidence and the documents filed by the Railway Department, it is evident that the contents in the written statement of the Railway Department clearly disclose that the Booking Supervisor of Dabirpura Railway Station informed the higher authorities that the Home Guard on duty informed him that one boy aged about 17 years, had fallen from Passenger Train No.526 at 17.30 hours on the platform and his right leg was cut and he was alive. The evidence led by the Railway Department is contrary to the recitals in the written statement. They have given a go-bye to their pleadings and led the evidence of RW-1, who is the Guard of the train. There is no evidence on record to show or prove that the Railway Guard had witnessed the incident. The first information to the GRP was from the Booking Supervisor, who came to know the information through the Railway Home Guard. The record also reveals that the Railway Guard was not at all examined by the GRP. Para 8 of the report of the Divisional Railway Manager reads as under : “On 30.04.2010 a message was issued by Smt.M.Mani, Booking Clerk/Dabirpura to GRP/SI/KCG and RPF/SI/KCG, informing that; “As per on duty home guards information A boy aged around 17 to 20 yrs has fallen from train No.526 around 17.30 hrs at DQR/Stn on platform No.(1). Para 8 of the report of the Divisional Railway Manager reads as under : “On 30.04.2010 a message was issued by Smt.M.Mani, Booking Clerk/Dabirpura to GRP/SI/KCG and RPF/SI/KCG, informing that; “As per on duty home guards information A boy aged around 17 to 20 yrs has fallen from train No.526 around 17.30 hrs at DQR/Stn on platform No.(1). His right leg was cut and was alive. Informed to 108 Van”. On the same day, i.e., 30.04.2010 at 22.15 hrs., a telephonic message was received to GRP/KCG from Osmania General Hospital. In this regard a Diary entry was made in Station House General Diary of GRP/KCG at Sl.No.28, stating that; “At this time received information from OGH that one person by name Azeem, S/o.Lateef Khan, aged 19 years, R/o.Warasiguda, Secunderabad, MLC No.13259 with IP.No.12899 who was fell down from train at 6.00 p.m.”” The aforesaid information clearly reveals that during the course of investigation, these are the messages/first information given by the Booking Clerk as well as by the authorities of Osmania General hospital. Even the name of the injured/appellant was also mentioned in the investigation report. But, quite surprisingly, the Divisional Railway Manager concludes in his report that the boy was running from booking office side and while trying to catch the running train, he fell down. As to how this finding came in the Divisional Manager’s Report, was not at all appreciated by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Though the Xerox copy of the Railway ticket was also filed before the Tribunal, the same was not at all marked. On 30.04.2010, the statement of the Booking Clerk Smt.M.Mani was also recorded, which clearly reveals that the appellant fell down from the train and his right leg was cut and he was alive and later they informed to 108 ambulance. The record also reveals that the Booking Clerk/Smt.M.Mani had given a statement on 26.12.2010 reiterating the same information which was informed to her by the Home Guard on duty. The certificate issued by one B.Sudarshan, AMJ/UR, dated 30.12.2010 also disclose that the Daily Train Cash-cum-Summary Ticket No.80292306 Ex Umdanagar to Jamai Osmania for 3 persons Rs.12/- was issued at Umdanagar by Sri Raman Kumar, Commercial Clerk. The certificate issued by one B.Sudarshan, AMJ/UR, dated 30.12.2010 also disclose that the Daily Train Cash-cum-Summary Ticket No.80292306 Ex Umdanagar to Jamai Osmania for 3 persons Rs.12/- was issued at Umdanagar by Sri Raman Kumar, Commercial Clerk. The certificate corroborates the version of the appellant that he, along with his two friends, travelled on the train and the number on the photocopy of the Train Ticket corroborates with the number which was incorporated in the above certificate. Further, though the incident took place on 30.04.2010, the record does not disclose any statement of RW-1 recorded on the said date. Surprisingly on 05.11.2011, the statement of RW-1 was recorded, which clearly disclose that he was the on duty Guard for the Passenger Train No.526 on 30.04.2010 and that a boy, who was about to board the running train, fell down. His evidence nowhere discloses that he had witnessed the incident and it is not known as to why the statement of RW-1 was not recorded on 30.04.2010 or prior to 05.11.2011. His statement also discloses that he had given message to the Deputy Superintendent, but there was no record before the Tribunal to that effect. The evidence of RW-1 further discloses that he has not mentioned in Ex.R-1/Guard’s Rough Journal regarding the availability of the ticket with the boy who fell down from the train and did not ask the victim regarding his name and he has not mentioned in Ex.R-1 about the ticket. The evidence of RW-1 clearly discloses that the victim had purchased the ticket and they ran towards the train and later the boy fell down. Therefore, in view of the evidence of RW-1 and the evidence of AWs.1 and 3, it can be construed that the applicant was the bonafide passenger, who purchased the ticket from AW-3 and boarded the train and later fell down from the train. The evidence of AW-2 further discloses that the right leg of the injured was amputated on 04.05.2010 i.e. subsequent to the untoward incident which took place on 30.04.2010 and Ex.A-4/Case sheet along with the discharge summary disclose that AW-1/injured was admitted in the hospital on 30.04.2010 and his right leg was amputated during the course of treatment and he was discharged on 16.05.2010. Therefore, the railways are liable to pay compensation. 12. Therefore, the railways are liable to pay compensation. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the oral evidence of AW-2 i.e. the Doctor who treated the appellant, the appellant’s right leg was amputated from above the knee. In view of the amputation suffered by the appellant, his case falls under Clause (17) of the Schedule given by the Ministry of Railways vide Notification dated 22nd December, 2016, as per which, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.04.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.181 of 2010 and granting compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- to the appellant. The respondent/ Railways shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. No order as to costs. 14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.