JAYANTILAL BHAGWANDAS TANDEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original applicant under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Case No. OA 0300118 by Railway Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 16.05.2007 by which the claim petition is dismissed.

(2.) The short facts of the present appeal is that on 02.06.1989 while returning from Bombay to Surat the appellant was traveling in Train No.2955 Dn Bombay Central Jaipur Express. The appellant fell down from the running train near Dungari Station Valsad at about 23.45 P.M., where he sustained serious injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Therefore, on the basis of worthy of one Pragneshbhai Kapadia bearding No.4/98, who telephonically conveyed to the Valsad Police Station on the basis of which entry no.25/02 was registered by the Government Police Station, Valsad. The victim was admitted in Sir D.M.Pitit Municipal Dispensary by Entry No.171 on the basis of Police Case at about 01.10 p.m. of 03.06.98 and was treated there from 06.08.1998 to 30.06.1998. It is found that there was ankle traumatic amputation on left leg 10 Cm below the left knee joint as well as on right side leg above 10 Cm ankle joint the underline muscle tibia and filulin were exposed. He was discharged on 30.06.1998 and had obtained medical treatment from the Orthopedic Surgeon of Shri Rang Hospital, Valsad. On the basis of that, the applicant has filed the aforesaid claim petition and the same came to be dismissed, and therefore, present appeal has been filed on the ground stated in the appeal, inter alia, that the Tribunal has committed error in appreciating the evidence and also considering the aspect of burden of proof. It is also stated that the Tribunal has also committed error by considering "Whether the applicant could be said to be a bonafide passenger and also appreciating the provisions of the Railway Act, 1989, particularily 124(A) of the Act regarding untoward incident.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Shri P.J.Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Shri Ravi Karnavat for the respondent.