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.20 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Manthena Yadagiri and three others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.20 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 30-09-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.258 of 2006, 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 Manthena Laxmibai (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.258 of 2006. 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 : They happened to be the husband and sons of the deceased. On 20-02-2006 the deceased along with her sister, sister’s son and grand children were traveling from Kamareddy to Secunderabad by train No.562 holding valid tickets bearing Nos.64891 to 64893, 81679 and 81680 and due to sudden jerks of the train, the deceased slipped and fell down from the moving train at Kamareddy railway station in between the train and platform and received injuries and died on the spot. Further, as she was holding a valid ticket she was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that she was not a bona fide passenger of the train and she fell down from the moving train by her own negligence while standing at the door of the compartment and waving hands towards her son which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries 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.562 passenger, traveling from Kamareddy to Secunderabad on 20-02-2006?? 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 first of them got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and on behalf of the respondent, the Deputy Station Superintendent, Kamareddy railway station, was examined as RW.1 and the Guard of the train was examined as RW.2 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and allowed the application apportioning the amount equally among themselves and further directing that each applicant be paid Rs.50,000/- immediately and the balance amounts shall be kept in fixed deposits for a period of three years in State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad, with a liberty to draw periodical interest thereon and also directing the Respondent to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which to carry interest at 9% p.a. till he date of realization. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there is no dispute to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train but only the dispute is as to whether the act of the deceased would amount to negligence and carelessness and causing of self inflicted injuries and it has to be brought within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore its order is liable to be set aside. 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. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is clearly observed by the Tribunal that the Divisional Railway Manager’s report Ex.R-1 clearly provides that though the victim was a bona fide passenger of the train, the incident took place because of her own negligent act i.e., standing at the door of the coach waving hands towards her son from the moving train and slipping and falling down and hence the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Ex.R-1 is to the same effect. When there is clear admission on behalf of the respondent to the said effect it is to be upheld that the deceased traveled by the train holding valid ticket, whereas, then it is to be considered as to whether it would fall within any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 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. So by virtue of the decision cited, such act of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and still she is to be treated as bona fide passenger of the train by which she 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