IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 22-03-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.270 of 2008 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND K.Mallaiah and others Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.270 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) to set aside order passed in O.A.A.No.121 of 2002 dated 11-12-2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed by the respondent under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following injuries said to have been received by him, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicant, are as follows : On 13-10-2001 while the applicant was traveling in train No.7055 Narsapur express from Nalgonda, he fell down at Secunderabad railway station accidentally from the train and then the train ran over him and hence sustained serious injuries including amputation of his left leg below its knee. Then he was taken for medical treatment but in the process he lost his ticket and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence he filed the application. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further claiming that no one would sustain such injuries by a fall from stationed train at a platform and in any case the incident appeared to have been occurred because of his own negligence and carelessness and hence the application should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.7055 Narsapur express traveling from Nalgonda to Secunderabad on 13-10-2001? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Secunderabad Rly.Station? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2,40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 & A.2. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R.1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant awarding Rs.1,60,000/- for the injuries said to have been sustained by him with a direction to the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of the order till the date of realization of the amount by reason of which the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Now there is no dispute about the claim of the applicant that he traveled by the train and fell down from the train while it was in motion and received injuries. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the said ticket was not produced before the Tribunal and it is quite un- natural that in the process of accident, the applicant lost the ticket and hence it cannot be said that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. No dispute is raised about the application of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. So the case will not fall under the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The circumstances of the case only show that while trying to get down from the train, which was in motion he slipped and fell down from the train which would not amount to any eventuality covered by the exceptions. 10. According to the applicant, he happened to be aged 70 years. Further it is observed by the Tribunal that no much dispute is raised to the effect that the applicant was holding a valid ticket to travel by the train and further he traveled a distance of more than 50 K.M prior to the occurrence and if he was not holding valid ticket, concerned railway authorities would have checked him and taken necessary action against him, about which there is no evidence, for which adverse inference is to be drawn. 11. When such incident took place, it is quite possible that his ticket was lost in the process. Further I agree with the observations made by the Tribunal noted above examining the relevant circumstances of the case. Therefore, it proves that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. 12. On the other hand, by virtue of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], such acts would not come within the purview of any exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Act and the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such victims or their kith and kin, it is to be liberally construed and hence they are also to be termed as bona fide passengers which entitle them to get necessary compensation. It is to be emphasized that none of the exceptions covers the act of trying to aboard a running train which results in slipping and falling down and receiving serious injuries. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed concluding that even such persons would be entitled to necessary compensation. Accordingly the applicant is entitled for necessary compensation. 13. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 22-03-2011. VJL [1] 2008 ACJ 1895