IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1136 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Vijaya Kumar Virabhadrappa Thalange and another …APPELLANTS. AND Union of India, represented by the General Manager. …RESPONDENT. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1136 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (for short, “the Act”), against order of dismissal passed in O.A.A.No. 329 of 2002 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in the said application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the application. 3. The O.A.A. is filed under Sections 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with 124-A and 125 of the Act, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following the death of Umesh, son of the applicants. 4. The claim of the applicants is that the deceased Umesh boarded in train No.476 at Adoni railway station on 15.11.2005 holding a valid journey ticket, but as the train suddenly moved, he slipped and fell down from the train and further held up in between the platform and the train and received grievous injuries and died on the spot. 5. The respondent filed written statement, denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further claiming that the act of the deceased would amount to cause of self-inflicted injuries, which would fall within the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 by revision of which, the application should be dismissed. 6. Basing on the above mentioned pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial and disposal: 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of accident? 2. Whether the deceased died of injuries sustained in an untoward incident, if so, what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to? 7. On behalf of the applicant, the 1st applicant got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondent, nobody was examined and no document was marked. 8. Basing on the material available on record, the Tribunal held the 1st issue in favour of the applicant and the remaining issues against the applicant on the ground that the act of the deceased would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act as the fall of the deceased was due to his own negligence and carelessness in trying to get into the train, when it picked up speed, which would amount to causing of self-inflicted injuries and ultimately dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. It has to be seen as to whether the act of the deceased would fall within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act? 10. POINT: Section 124-A of the Railways Act, reads as follows: “Compensation on account of untoward incidents.- 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 become necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]” Section 123 (c)(2) of the Act, reads as follows: “(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. 11. In view of the above, even such passengers would fall within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are not tenable and accordingly, they are to be set aside and the application is to be allowed. 12. By virtue of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tahazahthe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India[1], the applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of decree and at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside by awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date: 11-04-2011. INL [1] 2009(2) ACJ 2444