SIDHARTH K.BHATTATHIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the rejection of O.A.No.25/2023 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench the applicant has filed this appeal.

(2.) The appellant was a TV journalist. While he was travelling in Train No.22659, Kochuveli - Yog Nagari Rishikesh Super-Fast Express, from Kochuveli to Hazrat Nizamudeen on 19/11/2022, and when the train reached Surat Railway Station, he sustained injuries in an accident resulting in the amputation of both legs and fracture of the lateral end of the clavicle, having minimal displacement to the left side. The O.A. was filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000.00 with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the accident.

(3.) The appellant was examined as AW1. Exts.A2 to A11 were marked on his side. On the side of the Railway, the Guard of the train was examined as RW1. DRM report was marked as Ext.R1. CCTV visuals recorded in a CD was marked as Ext.RW- 1/B. A strange practice of marking the proof affidavit as exhibit was followed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in this case. Affidavits filed in lieu of chief examination are to be treated as part of the oral evidence of witnesses and not as documents marked in evidence.