IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.457 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Smt. Venukonda Lalithamma. --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.457 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 21-06-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.272 of 2001, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Venukonda Devender (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.272 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicant is as follows : The applicant happened to be the mother of the deceased. The deceased while traveling on 09-09-2001 from Jammikunta to Ramagundam by 323 Up Bhadrachalam Road – Sirpurkaghaznagar fast passenger, due to high speed and sudden jerks of the train, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at KM 279/13-15 between Raghavapur and Ramagundam Railway stations and died on the spot. Further, he happened being a bona fide passenger of the train holding valid ticket bearing No.28191100, the applicant who happened to be his mother, is entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the case of the applicant and further claiming that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and he fell down from the train due to his own negligent act which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which is an exception under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and also claiming that no untoward incident took place on that day with a plea that the application should be dismissed. 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 Venukonda Devendar? 2) Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of train No.323 Up Bhadrachalam Road – Sirpurkagaznagar Fast Passenger, traveling from Jammikunta to Ramagundam on 09-09-2001? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at KM 279/13-15 between Raghavapur and Ramagundam railway stations? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, she got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. Further, on behalf of the respondent none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant awarding the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicant and permitting her to immediately withdraw Rs.25,000/- on deposit of the amount with a direction to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit for a period of five years in any nationalized bank near her residence giving liberty to her to draw the periodical interest thereon and further directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of MRO Certificate failing which to carry interest at 6% p.a. thereafter till the date of realization. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent-Railways. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1, whereas the dispute is with regards to whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which is an exception under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased was holding valid ticket to travel by the train but the circumstances of the case prove that he tried to get down from the running train which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence its order is liable to be set aside. 10. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the applicant is not entitled to any compensation? 3) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 11. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train having valid second class ticket bearing No.28191100 to travel from Jammigunta railway station to Ramagumdam railway station. The date of incident as per the application and the FIR is 09-09-2001 and as per Ex.A-2 inquest Report inquest over the dead body was conducted on 10-09-2001 between 08-00 and 10-00 hours and concerned panchayatdars opined that the deceased while traveling by 323 fast passenger on 09-09- 2001, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and died due to the injuries received thereby. Ex.A-3 postmortem examination report agrees with the applicant’s claim of probable time of death of the deceased. Therefore, these circumstances are sufficient to hold that the deceased traveled by the train holding valid ticket and met with the accident. Further, by virtue of the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], such acts would not come within the purview of any of the 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 would fall under the first limb of the Section 124-A of the Act which entitle them to get necessary compensation. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed. 12. Point No.3: The Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason 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: 03-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC)