Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gottimukkala Kiran Babu vs C.M.A.No.179 Of 202 on 2 April, 2026
APHC010273252020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 179/2020
Between:
1. GOTTIMUKKALA KIRAN BABU, S/O LATE G.KOTESWAR RAO AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 1338, A.P. SPECIAL
POLICE, 6TH BATALLION, MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, The Union of India, rep. by its General
Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Appeal Under Section_____ against orders pleased to allow the C.M.A.,
by setting aside the Judgment dt. 172-2020 passed in 0.A.II (U) No. 384 of
2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur and
to grant
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. P L RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
C.M.A.No.179 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant challenging the order dated 17.02.2020 in O.A/II (u) 384 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the application of the applicant/appellant herein, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of the serious injuries sustained by the injured/applicant Gottimukkala Kiran Babu in a train accident that occurred on 03.09.2008.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The applicant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 124/124A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 the case of the applicant, in brief, as follows:
The applicant was under training of Head Constable in Kondapur 8th Battalion. He went on leave to Guntur to see his mother-in-law, who was not doing well. On 03.09.2008 at about 2.30 pm, the injured, along with his nephew, G. Krishna Rao, went to Guntur Railway Station and purchased 2 nd class train journey ticket from Guntur to Adilabad via Secunderabad for Intercity Express Train No.2705 and he had to change the train at Secunderabad to got to Adilabad. He also purchased a platform ticket for his nephew and the nephew, after giving send-off, returned to home at Guntur. During journey, the injured went to toilet and washed his hands in the wash- 3
VS,J C.M.A.No.179 of 2020 basin and at that time, due to sudden jerks and jolts of the train, he fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries and his both legs were cut as his legs crushed under the wheels of the train. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Vijayawada, where he got first aid and subsequently he was shifted to Yasodha Hospital, Somajiguda where he had taken treatment for nine days.
4. The respondent Railway filed written statement denying the various averments made in the application. It is contended that there was no report available with the Railways about this incident, since some unknown person informed to 108 ambulance, without passing any information to Railway authorities. In the Statutory inquiry Report, it was concluded that the incident took place due to Applicant's gross negligence as he was standing near the doorways and fallen down due to giddiness only as per the version of injured.
As such the claim does not fall within the ambit of section 123(c ) read with section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989. Hence, claim application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trail:
"1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident?
2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief?"4
VS,J C.M.A.No.179 of 2020
6. On behalf of the appellant/applicant, he himself was examined as AW1 and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. None was examined on behalf of the respondent. However, Statutory Investigation Report is marked as Ex.R1.
7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger of the train and that the injuries sustained were not the result of an untoward incident.
8. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/applicant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application filed by the appellants without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances and the material available on record. The Tribunal ought to have seen that whenever a passenger fallen from the train, there is no every chance of misplacement of the ticket and when there is no dispute regarding the fall of the deceased from the train there is no justification in dismissing the claim application. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants have discharged their burden of proof by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence and the burden shifts upon the respondent to prove the same. This aspect has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rena Devi Vs. Union of India. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the respondent except filing the DRM report there is no oral or documentary evidence adduced to disprove the claim of the appellants and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the same, but went wrong in dismissing the claim petition. The Tribunal on one hand admitted that the 5 VS,J C.M.A.No.179 of 2020 deceased was a victim of accidental falling from the train and on the other hand came to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger which finding itself is perverse. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/respondent herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT:
11. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 17.02.2020, it is observed that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that no ticket or travel authority was found with the injured person or at the place of the incident. Further, the guard of the said train had not noticed any person falling from the running train, nor was he informed by anyone about such an incident. However, a perusal of Ex.A4, the final report filed by the Superintendent of Police, GRP, Vijayawada, discloses as follows:
"The injured has not produced any ticket and stated that the ticket was lost in the accident at the spot. Therefore, the injured was not a bona fide passenger." 6
VS,J C.M.A.No.179 of 2020
12. The investigation in this case revealed that on 03.09.2008 at about 16:15 hours, the injured, Gottimukkala Kiran Babu, son of G. Koteswar Rao, aged about 35 years, while travelling, accidentally slipped and fell from Train No. 2705 Intercity Express after passing the bridge near Krishna and Vijayawada Railway Station. It is reported that the injured lost balance while travelling, resulting in both of his legs being crushed.
13. The Apex Court, in similar circumstances where the journey ticket was not found in the possession of the claimant, relied on the case of Rena Devi vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that the initial burden lies on the claimant to prove that he had travelled in the train, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the same. Further, in Suman Sharma vs. Union of India1, it was held in paragraph 9 as follows:
(i) Merely because no ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of no-fault liability payable on account of an untoward incident under Section 124.
(ii) The onus lies on the Railways to prove that the victim was not a passenger who fell from the train and was not a victim of an untoward incident.
(iii) The burden shifts to the Railways to establish that the victim was a trespasser travelling without a ticket and not a bona fide passenger. 1
2018 ACJ 2849 7 VS,J C.M.A.No.179 of 2020
14. In the present case, the claimant has established his case by filing an application before the Tribunal. The burden, therefore, lies on the Railway authorities to prove that the claimant did not travel in the said train and was not involved in the accident. The Railways have failed to discharge their burden.
15. In view of the above observations, it can be held that the appellant herein is a bonafide passenger of the train No.2705 and the injuries sustained are a result of an untoward incident under section 123(c) read with 124A of the Railways Act,1989.
16. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed for the injuries sustained, which fall under Schedule I, Part II(3) (double amputation). Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- under Part II(3) of the Schedule, as both of his legs were amputated due to being crushed in the accident.
17. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands allowed by allowing the claim by awarding a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The amount thus computed is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways 8 VS,J C.M.A.No.179 of 2020 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.04.2026 PBS