IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 649 OF 2007 Between : Velupally Madhu @ Madan Mohan …APPELLANT A N D Union of India. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 649 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 26.04.2007, in O.A.A.No.269 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the applicant, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that on 30.08.2002 he purchased a ticket bearing No.00795 worth Rs.21/- and boarded Repalle passenger train No.351 Dn in order to go Nadikudi, and when the said passenger train reached Nalgonda Railway Station, the applicant got down the train at about 1:10 PM for taking drinking water and after taking water he boarded the train. Due to heavy rush at the door of the train, he slipped and fell down under the wheels of the train and the wheels of train ran over his hands and legs. Immediately after the incident, the applicant was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda and from there he was shifted to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad. His left hand was amputated up to the shoulder joint. He also received multiple injuries all over the body. He was having a valid ticket to travel from Chityal to Nadikudi at the time of incident. Due to the accident, he was permanently disabled and he lost one of his hands. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the alleged incident does not fall within the meaning and scope of the word ‘untoward incident’ and as such he is disentitled for payment of compensation; that the enquiry revealed that the incident was caused due to the criminal acts of the applicant; that such act disentitle him from claiming any compensation for such self inflicted injuries and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.351 Dn. Repalle passenger travelling from Chityal to Nandikudi? 2. Whether the Applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Nalgonda Railway Station while getting into the train after drinking water? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.5,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A8 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant contended that the injuries sustained by the appellant in an untoward incident has not been disputed; that the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train; that on the ground that injuries sustained by the appellant amount to self inflicted injuries, the tribunal dismissed the claim application and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the appellant is not supposed to board a running train; that the act of injured in getting into the running train is nothing but deliberate self harm; that since it is a case of self inflicted injuries, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railway Act 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the applicant sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If two requirements are established, the applicant is entitled for compensation. On the ground that the injuries sustained by the applicant amounts to self- inflicted injuries, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. The word ‘infliction’ has not been defined under the Act, but it must mean an intentional act of harming oneself. In other words, it is a deliberate self-harm. It is a commission of deliberate harm to one’s own body. It is done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects. No doubt, the applicant is not supposed to board a running train, but at the same time, the intention of the appellant appears to be to board the train so that he would reach the destination, but not with an intention to sustain injuries on his body. At best, it amounts to some negligence or carelessness on the part of the applicant in trying to board the running train. The defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration under the Act. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. In view of the fact that Section 124 A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’, the applicant is entitled for compensation. As per item No.1 of part –III of Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short, ‘the Rules’), the amount of compensation payable for amputation through shoulder joint is Rs.3,60,000/- and as per item No.33 of part-III of the Rules, the amount of compensation payable for fracture of major bon-femur is Rs.40,000/- . 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 YVL