THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.713 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.04.2006 passed in O.A.A.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants / claimants seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the death of one Baby Jhansi Rani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 17.03.1998 while the deceased was travelling in Wadi Passenger Train from Secunderabad to Tandur, some unknown miscreants pelted stones at the train and one of such stones hit on the forehead of the deceased and she became unconscious. Immediately the deceased was taken to Gandhi hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries on 18.03.1998. Hence, the appellants who are the parents of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The respondent (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that it is not an untoward incident and the injuries resulting in the death of the deceased was not consequent to the untoward incident as per the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Baby Jhansy Rani, aged 8 years? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Wadi passenger travelling from Secunderabad to Tandur on 17.03.1998? iii. Whether the deceased died on account of sustaining injuries by pelting stones by unknown miscreants at Lingamapally Railway station limits and thereafter succumbed to injuries in the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad? and iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the first applicant was examined as A.W.1 and one B.Laxminarayana was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the appellants/claimants. On the side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition holding that the death of the deceased had not occurred in an untoward incident. Aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the appellants / claimants are entitled to compensation? 8 The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that while the deceased was travelling in the passenger train some body threw stones over the compartment and therefore it is a violent attack within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the Act and hence the claimants are entitled to compensation and in that connection he placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad Vs. Union of India[1] and therefore he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the respondent/Railways contended that since the deceased had not died in an untoward incident question of granting compensation to the legal representatives may not arise and that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, had rightly dismissed the claim application and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act two requirements are to be satisfied viz., the death of the deceased had occurred in an untoward incident and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 11 Insofar as the deceased travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket is not in dispute. From the evidence on record it is established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 12 Therefore the only question to be decided is whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not? It is not in dispute that while the deceased was travelling in the passenger train, some unknown miscreants pelted stones at the compartment and one of the stones hit the daughter of the applicants as a result of which, she lost consciousness and immediately she was taken to the Gandhi hospital on the same day. But on 18.03.1998 while she was undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. Whether the said act comes within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ or not is to be decided. Untoward incident is defined in Section 123 (c) of the Act. As per Section 123(c) of the Act, untoward incident means commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or the indulging in rioting, shoot-put 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. 13 On this aspect it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad (1 supra) wherein it is held at para No.14 as follows: 14. Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the learned single Judge has merely proceeded on the basis of the principle of strict liability for tortuous act. While applying the said principle, without proper application of the relevant provisions of law, the learned single Judge has rejected the claim of the applicants. Indeed, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocates for the appellants, the provisions of Sections 124-A and 125 read with section 123(c) of the said Act clearly deal with the situation like those in thecae on hand wherein the passenger suffer injuries on account of throwing of stones at the train. Not only the substantial provisions regarding liability to be fixed are comprised under Section 124 A of the said Act but even the procedural aspect relating to claim of compensation in exercise of such right has been covered by Section 125 of the said Act. When the statutory provisions clearly and elaborately prescribes the rights of the parties and the procedure to be followed to exercise those rights, merely by applying theory of strict liability of tortuous act, the learned single Judge was not justified in setting aside the decisions given by the Tribunal upholding the claim of the appellants. 14 From the above decision, it is clear that if the passengers suffer injuries on account of throwing stones at the train, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. Following the said judgment it can safely be said that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Pelting of stones against the passengers travelling in a passenger train can be said to be a violent attack and hence the legal representatives of the deceased are awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of award till realization. The said compensation shall be shared equally by the applicants. 15 The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.09.2011 Kvsn [1] AIR 2005 BOMBAY 418