THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 100 of 2009 Date: 21st March, 2011 Between: Union of India, rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad …. Appellant A n d Wardhineni Venkayamma … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 100 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, ‘the RCT Act’), aggrieved by order dated 14.11.2008 in O.A.A. No.318 of 2006 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the applicant in the application. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as they are arrayed in the application. The said application was filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on death of one A. Venkateshwara Rao due to accidental falling down from a train. The applicant is the mother of the deceased. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The deceased was working as Driver in the Indian Army at Gwalior. He was native of Kambhampadu village of Guntur District. On 14.07.2006, the deceased started his journey by Train No.2616- G.T.Express having purchased a ticket bearing No.84917057 from Gwalior in order to go to Vijayawada, and while traveling, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train near KM. No.231 between Rechini Road and Bellampally Railway Stations and received injuries and died. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train. The respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the claim of the applicant and further asserting that the deceased was suspected to be standing on a footboard of a compartment and leaning outside and on OHE (Over-Head Electrical) Mast hit his head, resulting in his fall and death and further though the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as the accident occurred due to his own negligent act thus the application is not maintainable. The Tribunal, on the strength of the pleadings, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether he deceased was a bona fide passengr of train No.2616 GT Express, traveling from Gwalior to Vijayawada on 14.07.2006? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? The applicant got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. The Tribunal, on the strength of the evidence adduced, upheld the claim of the applicant granting the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the respondents to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of order, otherwise to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the respondent. It is the contention of the respondent-Railways that as the deceased died because of his own negligent act the case would fall within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at erroneous conclusions. There is no dispute about the findings given under the 1st issue. Therefore, it is to be examined as to whether the deceased died in the incident because of his own negligent act which would fall within the purview of the exemptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act and the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not. POINT: There is no dispute that the deceased traveled by the train holding valid ticket and there is also no dispute that the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and died. There is no basis to say that, only because of the negligence of the deceased, the incident took place. In fact Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 reads: “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 Act 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.” The case would not fall within the ambit of any of the said exceptions as laid down in the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA v. V.PRABHAKARAM VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHERS[1], so it would fall within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. For the reasons discussed above, there are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 21st March, 2011 Rns [1] (2008)9 Supreme Court Cases 527