IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 875 AND 878 OF 2006 Between in CMA No.875 of 2006: Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Smt Mashina Thapa. …RESPONDENT Between in CMA No.878 of 2006: Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Smt Mashina Thapa and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 875 AND 878 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.878 of 2006 is directed against the order, dated 26.10.2005, in O.A.A.No.174 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Seth Bahadur Thapa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till realization. 2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.875 of 2006 is directed against the order, dated 26.10.2005, in O.A.A.No.173 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident, was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 10.03.2001 applicant No.1 and deceased purchased two tickets @ Rs.262/- each at Chennai in order to go to Varanasi and boarded train No.6039 Ganga- Kaveri Express in a general compartment. When the said passenger train was running between Ongole and Karavadi Railway Stations, applicant No.1 went to attend natural calls, accompanied by the deceased and after attending the nature calls, when the deceased went to wash basin to wash the hands, due to speed and jerk of the passenger train, he had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. While trying to save the deceased, applicant No.1 also accidentally slipped, fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence the claim application. 5. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the deceased and applicant No.1 were not bona fide passengers travelling in a passenger train; that the fall may be due to the negligence or criminal act of the deceased and applicant No.1, they are not entitled to compensation and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial in O.A.A.No.174 of 2001. “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Seth Bahadur Thapa? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train No.6039 Express travelling from Chennai to Varanasi on 10.03.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Ongole and Karavadi Raiwlay Stations? 4. To what relief? 7. The following issues are framed for trial in O.A.A.No.173 of 2001: “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of Train No.6039 Express, travelling from Chennai to Varanasi on 10.03.2001? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Ongole and Karavadi Railway Stations? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2.00 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged incident? 4. To what relief? 8. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 herself examined as A.W.1 besides examining A.W.2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A9 in O.A.A.No.173 of 2001 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were got marked in O.A.A.No.174 of 2001, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased died and applicant No.1 sustained injuries in an untoward incident; that the applicants filed dependency certificate to show that they are depending on the deceased and accordingly granted compensation. Challenging the same, the respondent/railways filed the two appeals. 10. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant/railways contended that since the appellants are residents of Nepal, the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) has no application and therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended since Section 124 A of the Act does not differentiate between the citizens of India and non citizens, it only requires that a passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and if such person sustains injuries, or dies, in an untoward incident, then those persons are entitled to compensation and therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the a person dies or sustains injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, its case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 13. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The death of the deceased who is no other than the husband of applicant No.1 is not in dispute. They were travelling in a passenger train No.6039 Ganga-Kaveri Express from Chennai Central to Varanasi. At the time of incident, when both the deceased and applicant No.1 were washing the hands at wash basin, deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train and died and when applicant No.1 tried to save the deceased, she also fell down and sustained injuries and became unconscious. Similarly, it is not in dispute that both the deceased and applicant No.1 were having valid tickets to travel in a passenger train. Therefore, two requirements which are to be proved by the applicants have been established. When these two requirements are satisfied, the applicants are entitled to compensation. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present facts of the case do not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The only objection raised by Railways in this appeal is that the applicants are residents of Nepal, the Act has no application. Any person, who travels as a passenger in a passenger train with a valid ticket, sustains injuries or meets with death in an untoward incident, then the injured or legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to compensation. The contention of the appellant that the Act has no application to non-citizens of India is totally devoid of merit and untenable since Section 124A of the Act does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. The word used in this Section is passenger with a valid ticket. It is immaterial whether such passenger is a citizen of India or not. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 14. So far as O.A.A.No.173 of 2001 is concerned, admittedly, the applicant therein sustained injuries and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted towards simple injury and another sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted towards miscarriage of pregnancy. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of wound certificate issued by competent Doctor, which would go to show that there was a mis-carriage of pregnancy. No doubt, it is non- schedule injury, but, at the same time, the fact remains that in an untoward incident she has to forego her pregnancy. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. 15. Accordingly, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 YVL