IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.01-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Smt. Badina Nagamani and two others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 OF 2009 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 14-10-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.155 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 the death of one Badina Satyanarayana (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.155 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : They happened to be the wife, son and mother of the deceased. On 08-12-2003 the deceased along with his wife, brother and some other coolies was traveling from Pulla village to Pedaoutpalli village in train No.426 Visakhapatnam – Vijayawada passenger and while it was crossing Bhimadole railway station due to heavy rush and jerks of the train, the deceased slipped and fell down from the train at the end of the second platform of Bhimadole railway station and received injuries and died on the spot. He was holding tickets bearing numbers 02624 and 02625 for him and some others. Therefore, he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that being not a bona fide passenger of the train, he fell down from the train by his own negligence which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries 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 applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the 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 himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and on behalf of the respondent, the Guard of the passenger train was examined as RW.1 and the Deputy Station Superintendent, Bhimadole railway station, was examined as RW.2 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and allowed the application apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- to the first applicant, Rs.1,25,000/- to the second applicant and Rs.75,000/- to the third applicant with a further direction to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and with a further direction that the respondent should pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of payment, in case of its failure to deposit the amount as directed. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the evidence recorded amply proves that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further the act of the deceased would 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 and therefore its order is liable to be set aside. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether sufficient material is there to the effect that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not? 10. Point No.1: Ex.R-1 provides that though the victim was a bona fide passenger of the train, the incident took place because of his own negligent act i.e., traveling in the train standing at the foot board or by standing at the door and falling down when there is clear admission on behalf of the respondent to the said effect it is to be upheld that the deceased traveled by the train holding valid ticket whereas, then it is to be considered as to whether it would fall within the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 11. 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.” 12. In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], it was held as follows : “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.” So by virtue of the decision cited, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and still they are to be treated as bona fide passengers of the trains by which they traveled or intended to travel. Further as the decision cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case without costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 01-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895