IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 04-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1038 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Ch. Sowmya and two others. --- Respondents/ Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1038 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) is directed by the Railways against order, dated 25-01-2006, in O.A.A. No.359 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following death of one Ch. Venkaiah, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.359 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The deceased while boarding Godavari express bearing train No.7008 at plot form No.1 of Secunderabad railway station on 11-11- 2002 for making onward journey got slipped and fell down as a result of which he received injuries and died on the spot and he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants who happened to be his children and dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement claiming that the relevant F.I.R. and Inquest Report disclose that a person while attempting to get into the train No.7008, Godavari Express while it was in motion on 11-11-2002 from plot form No.1 of Secunderabad railway station fell down and died as reported by one Kumaraswamy, a railway employee which would amount to causing self inflicted injuries and he was also not holding valid ticket and he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants are not entitled to the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Challa Venkaiah? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7008 Godavari express traveling from Secunderabad to Chennain on 11-11-2002? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Secunderabad Railway Station? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is a copy of relevant F.I.R. Dated 11-11-2002, Ex.A-2 is a copy of a relevant inquest report dated 12-11-2002, Ex.A-3 is a copy of relevant postmortem certificate dated 12-11-2002 and Ex.A-4 is the ticket bearing No.08548312. On behalf of the respondent Parcel porter in the Secunderabad railway station was examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal allowed the application and granted the relief directing the respondent to pay Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there was carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to catch hold of the running train and therefore the applicants are not entitled to any compensation as claimed. In support his contention, he has relied upon a full bench decision of this Court reported in UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD Vs. KURUKUNDU BALAKRISHNAIAH, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1]. 9. On the other hand it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that by virtue of Supreme Court decision reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[2], the act of the deceased does not amount to negligence or carelessness on his part and is to be construed liberally and hence the deceased is to be treated as a bona fide passenger of the train. 10. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the deceased is to be treated as a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? 3) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 11. Point No.1: It is to be very much emphasized that according to the respondent the deceased tried to catch hold of the moving train but in the process the deceased fell down and received injuries and died on the spot. RW.1 gave evidence accordingly. 12. In the decision of this Court reported in Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, Dhone, Kurnool District and others (1 supra), it is observed : “On the analysis above we conclude that the expression “untoward incident” in Sec.124-A of the Act, which has been defined inter alia to mean the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers (in sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act) does not comprehend injury or death occasioned by his negligence, carelessness, wrongful act or prohibited conduct, disregard of the requisite standard of care obligated by a person traveling on a train or any such conduct of a passenger which might reasonably be expected to result in his injury or death, as a resultant injury or death would, in such circumstances, be the consequence of a self-inflicted injury”. If the act of attempting to get down from the moving train amounts to carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased, in the lines of this decision, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation in the case. But in the decision 2nd cited supra, considering various aspects the Supreme Court observed under similar circumstances : “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains since everybody can not afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion the present case is clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 13. So by virtue of the decision 2nd cited, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and still they are to be treated as bona fide passengers of the train by which the deceased traveled or intended to travel. Further as the decision 2nd cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed. 14. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the deceased proved to be a bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal rightly granted compensation to the applicants and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 04-02-2011. Dsh. [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B.) [2] 2008 ACJ 1895