IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 23-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.446 of 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Kudaru Pullaiah and another --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.446 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.29 of 2002 dated 10-12-2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of Kudaru Kamalanatha Ambedkar, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.29 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 4. The facts of the case as set out by the applicant are as follows : On 10-02-2001 the deceased was travelling by train No.418 passenger from Siripuram to Gudavada holding valid journey ticket bearing No.05523 and he tried to get down from the train at Gudivada railway station but then he accidentally fell down from the train and suffered severe crush injuries. Further immediately the injured was shifted to the Government hospital, Gudivada and from there he was referred to the Government hospital, Vijayawada for treatment whereas he was declared dead on 10-02- 2001 in the latter hospital. Further being the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the train No.418 passenger on 10-02- 2001 arrived at Gudivada railway station at 12.35 hrs and after its schedule halt of 2 minutes started from there at 12.37 hrs., and when the train was on its run suddenly one man aged about 16 yrs., in a bid to jump out of the train in a rash and negligent manner came under the train resulting in cause of severe injuries to him. Further on hearing the cries of the co-passengers, the Guard of the train stopped the train and sent the victim for medical aid with a plea to dismiss the claim. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1) Whether the applicants are sole dependants of the deceased? 2) Whether on 10-02-2001 the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? 3) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them got examined as A.W.1 and also examined A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.R.1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs directing the respondent to deposit the same before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of order, failing which to pay interest at 6% p.a., from the due date till the payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the corresponding ticket was not seized by the concerned police and even supposing that he was holding valid ticket, the case would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore the order is to be set aside. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to (1) Whether sufficient evidence was placed to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train or not a bona fide passenger of the train? (2) Whether the case would fall within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? and (3) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is tenable or not? 10. POINTS: A.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that after purchasing necessary tickets she and the deceased travelled by the train and on the way the deceased slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries. In her cross examination it is deposed by her that after all the passengers including herself got down from the train, the deceased tried to get down from the train whereas then he fell down and received injuries. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal provides that no much dispute was raised with regards to holding the ticket. Ex.A.1-F.I.R copy, it is mentioned the number of the relevant ticket. A.W.2 deposed about the purchase of ticket and travel and it was not rebutted and it is quite trustworthy and there is no reason to reject her testimony. Therefore, it must be true that the ticket was lost in the process because of the impact of the accident. A fact in issue can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence also. 12. The main question involved in the appeal is as to whether the case would fall within the ambit of Section 123 C and main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 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.” 13. In UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS, 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.” 14. Therefore, by virtue of this decision coupled with the provisions of Section 123-C and 124-A of the Railways Act 1989, it is clear that even such people fall within the ambit of main limb of section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed. 15. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. The point is answered accordingly. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL