THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.NO. 642 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the act”) against order dated 22-03- 2006 passed in O.A.A.No.226 of 2000 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) filed under Section 16 of the Tribunal Claims Act, read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on injuries sustained by the applicant therein in an untoward incident of accident fall. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the applicant in the O.A.A.No.226 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: On 16-09-2000, the applicant aboarded 2nd class general compartment in train No.7007 Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad, Godavari Express at Rajahmundry to go to Hyderabad having valid ticket and at about 8.45 PM when the train was leaving Rajahmundry, he slipped and fell down accidentally due to rush of passengers and jerks of the train and thereafter, he went underneath the wheels of the train and both his legs were crushed. The respondents filed its written statement claiming that the act of the applicant would amount to causing of self inflicting injuries which would fall within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such he would not be entitled to any claim of compensation with a plea to dismiss the application. 3. On the strength of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues. 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7007 Visakhapatnam - Hyderabad Godavari Express travelling from Rajahmundry to Hyderabad on 16-09-2000? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Rajahmundry as alleged? 3) Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 4. For the applicant, he got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and for the respondent, the guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and in addition, a doctor was examined as CW.1 and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked. 5. Perusing the material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants. Hence the present appeal has been preferred. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the act of the applicant would come only within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and therefore, it is deemed to be self inflicted injuries and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly. 7. Therefore, it is to be considered whether it falls within the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 8. By virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar[1], even such passenger is deemed to be a bonafide passenger, provided he got valid ticket to travel by a particular train and it does not fall within the exceptions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 9. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable and eventually the appeal is to be dismissed as without merits. 10. In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed without costs in the circumstances of the case. ________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J February 24, 2011 SP THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.NO. 642 OF 2006 Dated: February 24, 2011 SP [1] 2008 (9) SCC 529