IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 04-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.228 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Moogi Lakshmi and four others. --- Respondents/ Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.228 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) is directed by the Railways against order, dated 13-11-2006, in O.A.A. No.117 of 2003, 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.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one M. Rama Rao, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.117 of 2003. 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 : The deceased was traveling from Ahmedabad to Srikakulam Road by Navjeen Express on 06-05-2003 and when the train reached Vijayawada station, he changed over to train No.2805 Janmabhoomi express on 07-05-2003 and while traveling in that train with express ticket bearing No.16760568, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train near Kovvuru railway station and sustained injuries and consequently died and he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants who happened to be his wife and children and his dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement claiming as follows : As per the directions of the Guard of the train it was stopped at Kovvuru station and later started and when it was in motion one of the passengers tried to get into the train and slipped and was run over and his right hand was cut. Though the passenger was holding ticket No.16760568 from Ahmedabad to Srikakulam Road there was negligence on his part and it would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries and as such he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants are not entitled to the compensation. 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 in question? 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 first of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 is a copy of relevant F.I.R. Dated 07-05-2003, Ex.A-2 is a copy of a relevant inquest report dated 08-05-2003, Ex.A-3 is a copy of relevant postmortem certificate dated 08-05-2003, Ex.A-4 is Legal Heir Certificate issued M.R.O. Gara, dated 21-07-2003 and Ex.A-5 is the ticket bearing No.16760568. On behalf of the respondent, the then Station Superintendent, Kovvur, was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. Ex.R-1 is relevant message issued by the Station Superintendent, Kovvur and Ex.R-2 is Guard’s Rough Journal. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal allowed the application and granted the relief directing the respondent to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there was carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to catch hold of the running train which falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 24-A of the Railways Act, and therefore the applicants are not entitled to the compensation claimed. In support his contention, he has relied upon a full bench decision of this Court reported in UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD Vs. KURUKUNDU BALAKRISHNAIAH, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1]. 9. On the other hand it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that by virtue of decision reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[2], the said act of the deceased does not fall within the scope of exceptions provided under Section 24-A of the Act and hence he is to be treated as bona fide passenger of the train. 10. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether there is evidence that the deceased traveled by the train and happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train? 2) Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 11. Point No.1: It is to be very much emphasized that there is no dispute that either the deceased got slipped and fell down from the train or he tried to aboard the train while it was running and fell down and received injuries and consequently died. So unless the Act comes within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the deceased is to be treated as a bona fide passenger of the train. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondent and so also by learned counsel for the applicants are to be examined in order to ascertain whether he was a bona fide passenger of the train? In the decision 1st cited supra, it was observed as follows : “On the analysis above we conclude that the expression “untoward incident” in Sec.124-A of the Act, which has been defined inter alia to mean the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers (in sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act) does not comprehend injury or death occasioned by his negligence, carelessness, wrongful act or prohibited conduct, disregard of the requisite standard of care obligated by a person traveling on a train or any such conduct of a passenger which might reasonably be expected to result in his injury or death, as a resultant injury or death would, in such circumstances, be the consequence of a self-inflicted injury”. 12. If this decision is to be followed, the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries due to negligence on the ground that he failed to take necessary care as an ordinary prudent person ought to have taken under similar circumstances. On the other hand in the decision 2nd cited supra it is observed with reference to relevant facts and circumstances of that case. “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.” And further it is observed by the Supreme Court that such acts would not come within the ambit of clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso of Section 124-A of the Act and on the other hand it comes within the purview of Section 124-A of the Act. 13. Further the judgment of the Supreme Court is to be followed by which it is to be termed that the act of the deceased in trying to catch hold of the train and falling down or while traveling in the train getting slipped and falling down can not be brought within the purview of clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and on the other hand it is to be brought within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore, he is to be treated as a bona fide passenger of the train following which the applicants are entitled to necessary compensation. 14. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 04-02-2011. Dsh. [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B.) [2] 2008 ACJ 1895