LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-429

KORE RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 21, 2017
Kore Raju Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the order dated 03rd April, 2014, whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that he was working as a constable with Sashastra Seema Bal and posted at Rangia, Assam; he took leave from 29th June, 2009 and went to his village in Warangal District; he was returning after leave from Warangal to Vijaywada from where he had to board a train to Guwahati; he purchased a general ticket from Warangal and boarded the train; he was standing near the gate of the compartment along with his luggage at about 03:30 A.M. on 29th July, 2009 when there was a jerk in the train and due to heavy rush, he fell down from the moving train; he was removed to Government Hospital, Khammam, where he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he remained from 29th July, 2009 to 06th August, 2009; both his legs were amputated; he lost his ticket during the transit and incurred Rs. 2 lakh on the medical expenses.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant did not disclose the details of the journey from Warangal to Vijaywada and the name of the train in which he was travelling. The Claims Tribunal further observed that the incident did not come to the notice of Railway Authorities at Chinthakani Railway Station; it is not known who alerted the ambulance and shifted the applicant to the government hospital at Khammam. The Claims Tribunal observed that no report is given to the railway station authorities by anyone or even by the GRP and no entry was made in the station records. The Claim Tribunal further observed that the appellant has not filed any final report of investigation by the Police or his hospital records. The Claims Tribunal further observed that the discharge card, Ex.AW-1/6 does not disclose that the accident was an accidental fall from any train. The Claims Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger of any train and that he met with an untoward accident on 29th July, 2009.