IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 22-03-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.312 of 2008 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND Tadikonda Venkata Subba Rao and another Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.312 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.106 of 2002 dated 23-01-2008 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs following death of Tadikonda Ravi Babu, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.106 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicants, are as follows : On 14-12-2001 the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from train No.441 passenger at about 6.30 p.m., at Kadavakuduru railway station on down line at km 323/28-30 and then the train ran over him causing instantaneous death. Further he was a bonafide passenger of the train. Further being his parents and dependants they are entitled to the compensation. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the claim of the applicants on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train and after the train moved, one male person aged about 20 years suddenly got down from the train and fell in between bogie and platform and died on the spot and it is a clear case of cause of self inflicted injuries and not a case of accidental fall from the train and not an untoward incident for which the railway administration is absolved from the payment of compensation and therefore prayed for the dismissal of the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1 ) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.441 passenger traveling from Ongole to Nidubrolu on 14-12-2001? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the second of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and another witness was examined as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R.1 and R.2. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. It is mainly disputed before this Court that the accident took place only due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the deceased, which would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and hence the applicants are not entitled for the compensation and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly. 9. Therefore, it is to be examined as to whether the case would fall within the ambit of the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such the applicants are not entitled for any compensation and the order of the Tribunal is tenable or not. Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 is as follows : “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 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.” As per Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989: " passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket; 10. On the other hand, in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], considering various aspects the Supreme Court observed under similar circumstances : “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.” 11. So by virtue of the above decision, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and even such persons also fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) and the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed. 12. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions. I see no reason to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 22-03-2011. VJL [1] 2008 ACJ 1895