IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.04-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.903 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Katari Yadagiri. --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.903 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 07-08-2007, passed in O.A.A. No.246 of 2004, 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 loss of both legs of the respondent in a railway accident, allowing it. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.246 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts set out in the application in brief are as follows : On 28-09-2004 the applicant along with his contractor Bala Prasad and other colleagues went to Nellore railway station with a view to go to Ennur, Chennai, for catching fish on contract basis. His contractor , Bala Prasad purchased journey tickets for 25 persons including the applicant for their travel from Nellore to Ennur and all of them boarded train bearing No.176 passenger and while the applicant was trying to get into the general compartment of the train, there was heavy rush in the train and also the train started with a jerk, as a result of which, the applicant accidentally slipped and fell down between the train and the platform at Nellore railway station and then the train ran over his both legs. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nellore, by his colleagues and from there he was taken to a private nursing home for better treatment. Hence, the application was filed claiming the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the pleas of the applicant and further claiming that the applicant purchased the ticket only after the accident and at 9-40 hours one duty parcel clerk, noticed the injured at the south end of the platform No.3 at Nellore railway station and the applicant while trying to board the moving train at the south end of the platform fell down and sustained injuries and as such the same would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries by his negligent and careless act which does not attract Section 123-C and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore 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 applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.176 passenger, traveling from Nellore to Ennur on 28-09-2004? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 4) To what Relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, Booking Supervisor was examined as RW.1 and hard copy of Daily Trains Cash Book filed by him was marked as Ex.R-1 and D.R.Ms report was marked as Ex.R-2. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment failing which, to pay interest at 6% per annum from the due date till realization. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent- Railways. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that according to the applicant 25 persons including himself traveled by the train and in the process he fell down and received injuries and as per the procedure followed in the railways one general ticket could be issued for ten persons and there is no dispute about the issuance of tickets, but the circumstances of the case make it amply clear that it was an act of trying to get down from the moving train which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries by negligence and carelessness which fall within the ambit of the 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. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether : 1. Whether the act of the applicant would come within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2. Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and whether its order is sustainable or not? 10. Point : 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.” 11. By virtue of the Supreme Court 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 are also to be brought within the purview of the main limb of the section which entitle them to get necessary compensation. The same observations holds good here. Therefore, the claim of the respondent is not tenable. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 04-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895