THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 16 of 2009 04th March, 2011 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad … Appellant And Smt. Gandhi Nagachakram and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 16 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 13-10-2008 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad in O.A.A.No.3 of 2005; wherein the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000, consequent on death of one Gandhi Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant No.1 is the wife, applicant No.2 is the son and applicant No.3 is the daughter of the deceased. On 10-01-2005, at about 11:30 P.M., the deceased boarded train No.473 at Renigunta railway station to go to Samarlakota. At about 04:30 hrs on 11-01- 2005, due to speed and jerks of the train, the deceased fell down from the train between Gudur and Manubolu railway stations sustaining serious head injuries and died. The deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants being his legal heirs and dependents, are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the claim of the applicants and further claiming that the train stopped at the outskirts of Gudur and while it was in motion, the deceased fell down and received injuries and died by his own negligence, and hence the application should be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: (i) Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? (ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.473 passenger traveling from Renigunta to Samarlakota on 11-01-2005? (iii) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? (iv) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and also got examined one co-passenger as A.W.2 and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, the railway key man was examined as R.W.1. 7. Examining the material on record, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 8. The only point for consideration by this Court is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was holding a valid ticket while traveling by the train but he got down from the train during night time when the train was stopped at a distance of one kilometer from Gudur railway station for necessary signal, and while he was trying to get into the train, he fell down and received injuries and died, which falls within the main limb of Section 124 of the Railway Act. 10. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent-Railways that the deceased was not bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and passed incorrect order and therefore the order is not tenable in law. 11. It is of significance that, admittedly, the deceased traveling by the train holding a valid ticket and therefore, under normal circumstances, he should be called as a bona fide passenger of the train. It is to be examined whether in view of his conduct in getting down from the train during that odd hour and also at that odd place without any need and trying to get into the train in the process of which, he fell down and received injuries would be sufficient to come to a conclusion that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 reads: “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.” 12. None of the exceptions cover such act of the deceased. Further, by virtue of a decision reported in UNION OF INDIA v. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHERS[1], it is observed by the Supreme Court that if a person falls down from moving train and received injuries or if he tries to get into a moving train and falls down and receives injuries holding a valid ticket to travel by such train, he falls within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Act and does not fall within any of the exceptions, there under. Further, by virtue of Section 2 of the Act, a passenger is a person who holds a valid ticket to travel by train which is most important here, and when such is the position, the corresponding act of the deceased cannot be taken in a sense which defeats the claim of the applicants, particularly, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. It is a rule of caution that every passenger of a train has to take necessary care and caution while boarding trains or getting down from trains. The Act is legislated for the benefit of victims of railway accidents. In that view of the matter, the deceased is to be brought within the purview of the concept of main limb of Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, I do not agree with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, this point is answered. 13. Therefore, for the above discussed reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and, ultimately, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 04th March, 2011 KSM [1] 2008 (2) TAC 777