IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 23-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.359 of 2008 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND Kumara venkata Subrahmanyam --- Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.359 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short the Act) is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.351 of 2003 dated 28-01-2008 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of Kumara Suresh Kumar, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.351 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case as set out by the applicant is as follows : On 24-03-2003 the deceased purchased a journey ticket to travel from Kavali to Gudur and boarded general compartment in train No.2760 Charminar express at Kavali Railway Station at about 6.00 a.m. and because the compartment was crowded the deceased stood near a door way of the compartment and due to the speed and jerks of the train the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in motion near Kavali railway station at K.M.No.223/3-1 and died. Further as the father of the deceased the applicant is entitled to the compensation. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicants on the ground that as per inquest report under column No.IX it was clearly mentioned that the death of the deceased was either due to hit by train while crossing the track or attempt to commit suicide and prayed to dismiss the claim. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3) Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, two witnesses were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs directing the respondent to deposit the same before it together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that no ticket was seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased whereas according to the applicant, the ticket of the deceased was lost in the process of accident and the Tribunal accepted the evidence of A.W.2 who deposed that he travelled along with the deceased whereas both of them got valid tickets to travel by the train and there is no basis to accept his claim and further the case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and the Tribunal failed to examine the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore its order is to be set aside. 9. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined (1) Whether the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train? (2) Whether the case would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act? (3) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is tenable or not? 10. POINT N0.1: With regard to the question of bona fide travel, the evidence of A.W.2 is very important. He clearly deposed that he travelled along with the deceased in a general compartment of the train holding valid tickets and the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries and died instantaneously. Nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. Accordingly, it is accepted to be true and correct. Therefore it upholds that the deceased travelled by that time holding valid ticket and the ticket might have been lost in the process of the accident. 11. As per the inquest report as in Ex.A.2, concerned panchaytidars gave opinion that the deceased might have died either because of a hit by a train or because of his attempt to commit suicide. But the inquest report is admissible only with regard to the nature of injuries received by the deceased and cause of his death. Further having gone through the inquest report, it is clear that such opinion was arrived at basing upon some imagination. Further as per Ex.A.7-final report filed by the concerned police officer, as per his investigation, the deceased might have fallen down from a running train and received injuries, which supports the claim of the applicants in the same context. It does not show that any eyewitness was examined by the police officer for coming to such a conclusion to accept the same to be true and correct. However this lacunae need not be given any importance when the evidence of A.W.2 is accepted to be true and correct with regards to the travel. Accordingly, this point is answered. 12. POINT No.2:- With regard to the question of application of the exceptions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned, Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as follows : “Untoward incident” means – (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity ; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station : or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. 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.” 13. In UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS, considering various aspects the Supreme Court observed under similar circumstances : “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.” 14. Therefore, by virtue of the above judgment coupled with the provisions of Section 123-C and 124-A of the Railways Act 1989, it is clear that even such people fall within the ambit of main limb of section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to necessary compensation. 15. POINT No.3:- The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL