IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.267 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Kulandaiammal and three others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.267 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 29-12-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.156 of 2002, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Arogya Swamy (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.156 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : The applicants happened to be the wife and children of the deceased. The deceased who was working as Nayak in Indian Military Service along with his colleagues boarded train No.6046 Navjeevan Express on 08-05-2002 with valid ticket bearing No.99349 from Tirukovilur to go to Jodhpur and when the train reached Tenali railway station at about 03-40 p.m. the deceased got down to fill up water in his bottle and while trying to board the train, due to sudden jerks of the train, he lost balance and fell down in between the platform and the train and sustained severe injuries. He succumbed to the injuries while he was undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Tenali. Further, he happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train. Further, the applicants who happened to be his wife and children are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the case of the applicants but admitting that after the train with No.6046 Navjeevan express started at Tenali at 15-42 hours, some passengers pulled the alarm chain of the train and stopped the train and the same was reported to the Railway Officials. The respondent further claimed that the deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligent act resulting in causing of self inflicted injuries which is an exception under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and the ticket was not issued at Tirukovilur and he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and 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 applicants are dependents of the deceased Arogya Swamy? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6046 Navjeevan Express traveling from Tirukavilur to Jodhpur on 08-05-2002? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Tenali railway station? 4) Whether the deceased was negligent in boarding the running train and injuries sustained by him amounts to self inflicted injuries and the railways are not liable to pay compensation? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and also got examined AWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. Further, on behalf of the respondent none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants apportioning Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the applicants and permitting the first applicant on deposit of the amount to immediately withdraw Rs.50,000/- with a direction to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank near the place of her residence for a period of five years giving liberty to draw the periodical interest thereon and further directing that the entire share amounts of the applicants 2 to 4 should be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank near their residence till they attain majority giving liberty to the first applicant to draw periodical interest of their amounts and further directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent-Railways. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1, whereas the dispute is with regards to whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that in the written statement it is clearly pleaded that the deceased was not having a valid ticket to travel by the train and further the circumstances of the case prove that while aboarding running train, the deceased slipped and fell down and received injuries and later died which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence its order is liable to be set aside. 10. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the applicants are not entitled to any compensation? 3) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 11. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the deceased happened to be a soldier. AW.s 2 and 3 deposed to the effect that they also happened to be soldiers and were traveling along with the deceased and they were eye witnesses to the incident. Further, a certified copy of the ticket bearing No.99349 was produced whereas, it is claimed that it related to the deceased only. According to AWs.2 and 3 their tickets were collected by the concerned Railway Authorities. It is also pertinent to note here that Inquest Report shows that at the time of inquest over the dead body AWs.2 and 3 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, these circumstances are sufficient to hold that the deceased traveled by the train along with AWs. 2 and 3 and he met with the accident. The respondent failed to place any satisfactory evidence to prove that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Further, by virtue of the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], such acts would not come within the purview of any of the 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 would fall within the first limb of Section 124-A of the Act which entitle them to get necessary compensation. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed. 12. Point No.3: The Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason 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: 03-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895