THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 416 of 2006 JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the order dated 01.12.2005 in O.A.A. No.329 of 2001 on the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that it is a case of self-inflicted injuries. 2. The appellants/claimants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Pilla Joginaidu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of an accidental fall from train. It is their case that, the deceased, along with his relatives, was travelling by Train No.425 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam Passenger in general compartment from Rajahmundry to Tuni on 30.10.2001 with group ticket bearing no.38242504, and he got down at Samalkot railway station for drinking water and when he got into the train and while going inside, he fell down due to speed and sudden jerk of the train, and sustained severe multiple injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The respondent/railways contended that the informant mentioned in the First Information Report is an interested party and it is not an untoward incident, and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as the claimants did not file journey ticket. 3. The Claims Tribunal held the claimants are the dependents of the deceased and that the deceased is a bona fide passenger, but dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the fall from the compartment appears to be a case of negligence on the part of the deceased, which comes within the meaning of self-inflicted injuries. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the death of the deceased is not in dispute; that police, while conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased, seized a valid ticket to travel in the passenger train and so he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train; that, on the ground that the injuries sustained by the deceased are self-inflicted, the Claims Tribunal denied the grant of compensation to the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased; that, the deceased died in an untoward incident, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the claimants. 5. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaram Vijaya Kumar & others[1], wherein it is held thus: (paras 14 & 17) “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 railway trains since everybody cannot 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.” “Section 124a lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124a it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 6. The railway administration has taken a specific plea that it is a case of self-inflicted injuries as one of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. There cannot be any dispute that if the case of the railway administration falls under any one of the clauses (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the railway administration to plead and prove that the deceased died as a result of the self-inflicted injuries. Except taking a plea that it is a case of self-inflicted injuries, it is not substantiated by any other evidence. No person competent to speak about that aspect is examined. So, in the absence of any evidence, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the injuries sustained by the deceased are self-inflicted. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The appellants/claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. From out of the compensation amount, the appellant no.1/claimant no.1, who is wife of the deceased, is entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and the appellant no.2/claimant no.2, who is son of the deceased, is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. No costs. --------------------- 18.3.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 416 of 2006 18.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 416 of 2006 18.3.2011 Between: Pilla Nagamani & another …Appellants And The Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Respondent [1] (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527