IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 23-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.461 of 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND Konduri Nageswari and others --- Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.461 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short the Act) to set aside the order passed in O.A.A.No.226 of 2004 dated 25-02-2008 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, consequent on the death of Konduri Venkateswarlu, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A.No.226 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicants, are as follows: On 21-08-2004 the deceased purchased a journey ticket bearing No.22504302 and travelled in Godavari express upto Vijayawada and from Vijayawada the deceased boarded train No.2764 Padmavathi express in general compartment and that on 22-08-2004 at about 5.57 a.m. when the train was about to reach Nellore railway station, the deceased came near a door with a view to get down from the train but due to the jerk of the train, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Nellore railway station between platform no.3 and the train and sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously. Further being the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased the applicants are entitled to the compensation. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that due to the negligence of the deceased the accident occurred and the petition should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.2764 Padmavathi express travelling from Visakhapatnam to Nellore on 22-08-2004? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) Whether the applications are entitled to claim compensation of RS.4,00,000/-? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them the wife of the deceased got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4. 7. After considering the material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A has been preferred. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no dispute about the travel of the deceased holding valid ticket whereas there is dispute about the nature of the accident and coverage of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act by reason of the application of which the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. 9. It is to be mainly examined whether the case falls within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act or the exceptions provided thereunder and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 is as follows : “Untoward incident” means – (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity ; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station : or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides : “When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident : Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to – (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him ; (b) self-inflicted injury ; (c) his own criminal act ; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.” 10. On the other hand, in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS, 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.” 11. By virtue of this decision coupled with the provisions of Section 123-C and 124-A of the Railways Act 1989, it is clear that even such people fall within the ambit of the main limb of section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled for necessary compensation. 12. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL