HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.163 OF 2006 DATED 18-2-2011 Between: Shivaramulu and others ---- Appellants AND: Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ---- Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.163 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act against order dated 5-1-2006 passed in O.A.A.No.274 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad filed under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 dismissing it and refusing to award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as pleaded therein. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as applicants and respondent as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the husband and children of the deceased in question by name Smt. Manemma. On 15-5-1999 at 7.30 A.M, the deceased went to the Railway Station at Mahaboobnagar and purchased ticket in order to come to Hyderabad and instead of boarding the intending train for the said purpose, she boarded train No.523 which was to go to Dronachalam and then she was informed that its destination was Dronachalam and by that time, the train was moving and therefore, she tried to get down from the train and in the process, slipped and fell down, as a result of which she went underneath the train and the wheel of the train ran over her and she died on the spot. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the claim of the applicants. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased Smt. Manemma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.523 Dronachalam passenger travelling from Mahabubnagar to Malakpet on 15-5-1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Mahaboobnagar Railway station? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. 7. Examining the material available, the tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the applicants while holding the issues 2 and 3 against the appellants mainly on the ground that she was not a bonafide passenger of the train from which she is said to have fallen down having ticket for a different train. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. It is significant note here that the deceased having a valid ticket to travel by a different train aboarded the train from which she fell down which must be under a bonafide belief that it was the train by which she had to travel to reach her destination but once she came to know the fact, she tried to get out of the train by which time it was in motion whereas in the process she fell down and received injuries and died on the spot. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that when she aboarded the train and fell down without having requisite ticket, it cannot be said that she happened to be a bonafide passenger of the train to bring her fate within the ambit of Section 123 or Section 124A of the Railways Act 1987 whereas leaned counsel for the applicants has asserted that even such passengers would come within the purview of the provisions so as to pay necessary compensation to those concerned placing relevance upon decision reported in 2003 (1) ALT 65 between K. Vidyakumari and others vs Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 10. Therefore in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal and the contentions advanced by both the learned counsels adduced it is to be examined whether she was a bonafide passenger of the train and whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed and whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable or not. 11. Therefore it is necessary to examine the amplitude of Section 123-C and 124-A of the said act. 12. Section 123-C of the Act contemplates with regards to what is meant by untoward incident as follows. Section 123: (a) ………………… (b) ……………….. (c) “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 of1987); 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, cloakroom 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. 13. Further 124-A of the Act contemplates as under: Compensation on account of untoward incidents:- When in the course of working a railway an untoward accident occurs, m 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. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; (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. 15. Significantly the act of the deceased would not fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act as it was not suicide or attempted suicide or causing of self injuries, or indulging in a criminal act, or not an act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or decease or medical or surgical treatment. Further the explanation is categorical that the word “The passenger” includes 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. So what is required here is purchase of valid ticket to travel by train and becoming a victim of an untoward incident or purchase of a valid platform ticket even and becoming a victim of untoward incident. No distinction is made in the provisions with regards to those passengers who purchase tickets to travel by a train or trains but who aboard different train or trains under a bonafide belief that they have to travel by the same train or trains to reach their destinations and become victims of untoward incidents nor there is any specific exclusion of such passengers therein. What emerges from a close scrutiny of the provisions is that the scope of the provisions is wide enough to cover all those who purchase tickets to travel by a train or trains and becomes victims of untoward incident or incidents whether it happened while they are in the train or trains intended to take them to their destinations or while they are in the train or trains which they aboard under a bonafide belief that they are intended to take them to reach their destinations though they are not whereas the main criteria to be taken is whether they are possessing a valid ticket to travel to reach their destinations to attract the provisions. The act is a beneficial legislation so enacted for the benefit of the victims of the railway accidents and in the absence of any specific provision which declares them unfit to make a particular claim provided under the act it is to be construed in a very liberal way which is beneficial to them. 16. In the decision reported in K. Vidya Kumari and Others V. Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (2003 (1) ALT page 67), under similar circumstances it is observed, “A passenger who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, and even a person who possesses a valid platform ticket is covered by this definition, and when becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. There is no specific mention in this section that a passenger should possess a ticket only in respect of the train from which he had an accident fall. Since a person who possesses a platform ticket is also entitled for compensation, possession of a valid ticket for a particular train, becomes immaterial. If a passenger possesses a valid ticket for a train carrying passengers is sufficient to claim compensation, provided he becomes victim of an untoward incident. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Tribunal has held that it is an accidental fall, which falls within under the meaning of expression ‘untoward incident’. But the Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants only on the ground that the deceased was not bonafide passenger. Admittedly the deceased was having a valid railway ticket, might be valid in the train from Guntur to Secunderabad, and that the said train had not reached the platform to take the passengers to Guntur to Secunderabad. But that would not make any difference in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the explanation contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, clearly contemplates that a person who purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any day or possesses a valid platform ticket, and of he becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. The section does not further clarify that the passenger must possess the valid ticket of the same train from which he had an accident fall. The fact that even a platform ticket holder is also entitled for compensation, itself, is a clear indication that any person who is having a valid railway ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date, and becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation.” 17. These observations are quite applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. Therefore for the aforementioned reasons, the deceased is to be termed to be a bonafide passenger and as such the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed. 19. Further examining the circumstances of the case, interest is awarded at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of application till the date of this order and also till one year from here after and at the rate 9 percent per annum thereafter till the date of realization of the amount. 20. In the result, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is disposed of subject to the observations made above. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 18.02.2011 SP HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.163 OF 2006 DATED 18-02-2011 SP