IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.01-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.98 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND K. Gopala Krishna Murthy and three others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.98 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 04-11-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.336 of 2005, 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 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Kolapalli Symala (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.336 of 2005. 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 husband and children of the deceased. On 11-10-2005 the deceased along with her daughter, son- in-law and grandson went to Annavaram from Vijayawada and after having the darshan of the deity there they went to Annavaram railway station and purchased two II Class train journey tickets bearing Nos.19402334 and 19402338 and entered general compartment of train No.2717 Visakhapatnam – Vijayawada Ratnachal express, but when the train suddenly started, the deceased due to jerks of the train slipped and accidentally fell down from the train in between the platform and the train and received severe injuries to her right hand and right leg and immediately the train was stopped, and the railway officials rendered first aid to her and while she was shifting in 425 passenger to Railway Hospital, Tuni, for better treatment, she was declared dead. Further, she was a bona fide passenger of the train having valid ticket, hence the application. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that she fell down from the running train by her negligence and carelessness which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which is an exception under section 124-A of the Railways Act and therefore 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? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2717 Ratnachal Express, traveling from Annavaram to Vijayawada on 11-10-2005? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the fourth of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the respondent, Mail Guard was examined as RW.1 and Deputy Station Superintendent of Annavaram railway station was examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and against the respondent and directed the respondent to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization after apportioning the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- equally to all the applicants and further permitting the applicants to withdraw Rs.50,000/- each immediately with a further direction that the balance amounts should be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years in State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad, with a liberty to draw interest. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the Present Appeal has been preferred. 8. The Tribunal in fact observed that Ex.A-5 Family Member Certificate issued by the M.R.O. Vijayawada Urban would provide that the applicants 1 to 3 happened to be the husband and sons of the deceased and the 4th applicant examined as AW.1 stated in her affidavit that though she happened to be the daughter of the deceased, she gave up her share of ¼ in the case claiming that she got no objection to award the compensation, if any, to the other applicants and as such the applicants 1 to 3 are to be treated as the dependents of the deceased, but ultimately the Tribunal allowed the claim extending the benefit to all the applicants including the fourth applicant which, is quite contrary to the findings arrived under the issue No.1 therein so far as the fourth applicant is concerned. Therefore, it is to be limited to the applicants 1 to 3 treating them as the dependents of the deceased only subject to the ultimate result of the case. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not? 10. Points Nos.1 and 2: Ex.R-4 issued by the Railway Divisional Manager provides that it happened to be a case of falling down from a train holding a valid ticket whereas, there was negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted in the incident. Further, as per the inquest report, the ticket was seized from the dead body of the deceased at the time of inquest. 11. 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.” In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], it was held as follows : “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.” 12. Therefore, by virtue of the decision cited, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of any 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 trains by which the deceased traveled or intended to travel. Further as the decision cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case without costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 01-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895