IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.75 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Ali Asghar. --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.75 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Tribunal Act”) against order dated 31-10-2005, passed in O.A.A. No.158 of 1998, filed under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of amputation of his right hand shoulder in a railway accident, partly allowing it. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.158 of 1998. 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 in the application are as follows : On 06-05-1998 at 07-00 p.m. the applicant along with his son went to the railway station at Bhimavaram and then he tried to aboard a train bearing No.7055 having purchased valid tickets for both of them but in the process he fell down and sustained amputation of his right hand shoulder and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the application. 4. The respondent filed his written statement claiming that as the applicants tried to catch hold of the running train and aboard it but in the process fell down and received injuries, it would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries by his negligent and careless act which does not attract Section 123-C of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore he was not a bona fide passenger of the train to make the claim. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Is it proved by the petitioner that Ali Asghar was travelling as a passenger in train No.7055 on 06-05-1998? 2) Is it further proved that Ali Asghar accidentally fell down from the train as pleaded in Para 6 of the petition, suffered injuries on 07-05-1998? 2) Does the Respondent prove that the deceased attempted to catch and enter into the compartment of the train while it was in motion and therefore, it does not attract Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989? 3) To what Relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 which happened to be relevant Xerox copies of two tickets, accident message, admission and discharge slip and out patient ticket. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined. 7. Basing upon the evidence adduced and other relevant material, this Court uphold the contention of applicant and accordingly allowed the application but thereafter the respondent preferred C.M.A. No. 1235 of 2002 on the file of this Court, in which it was observed that the matter should be disposed of in the light of Full Bench decision of this Court reported in UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD Vs. KURUKUNDU BALAKRISHNAIAH, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1] and remanded the matter for doing so. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has that by virtue of the decision first cited, the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the Tribunal held the issue wrongly. 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.” 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”. 9. On the other hand, in a decision of the Supreme Court reported i n UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[2], it is observed that such acts would not come within the purview of any exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Act and the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such victims or their kith and kin, it is to be liberally construed and hence they are also to be termed as bona fide passengers which entitle them to get necessary compensation. It is to be emphasized that none of the exceptions covers the act of trying to aboard a running train which results in slipping and falling down and receiving serious injuries. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed. There is no dispute with regards to the findings given under the first issue and as such there are no infirmities in the order of the Tribunal to take a different view. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 24-02-2011. Dsh. [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B.) [2] 2008 ACJ 1895