IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3514 OF 2002 Between: Punna Sekhar .....APPELLANT AND Union of India, represented by its General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3514 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 28.08.2002, in O.A.A.No.151 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that there was no untoward incident and there was no evidence to show that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Appellant is the resident of Ranga Reddy District in Andhra Pradesh. He went to Delhi and while he was returning to Hyderabad he purchased a ticket bearing No.85219177 to travel from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Hyderabad and came to the platform. He boarded a train. After enquiring the passengers, when he came to know that the train was not going towards Hyderabad, he jumped from the train and as a result he fell in between the platform and the train and sustained multiple injuries to both the hands and legs. Immediately he was shifted to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, for treatment, where he underwent treatment for one month. Thereafter, at his request, he was shifted to Hyderabad and both the hands were amputated, besides several grievous and simple injuries all over the body. 3. The respondent filed written statement stating that the falling from the train does not come under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), as no untoward incident took place. 4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been tried: “1. Whether the applicant can be considered as a bona fide passenger while getting down from the wrong train in which he did not intend to travel on 17.02.1997 at Hazrath Nizamuddin Railway Station? 2. Whether the applicant has fallen from passenger train in which he is not entitled to travel by purchasing ticket from Hazrath Nizamuddin to Hyderabad and the same can be treated as an untoward incident of accidental fall? 3. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of untoward incident and entitled to claim Rs.4 lakhs as compensation? 4. To what relief?” 5. To substantiate the case of the appellant, Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. On behalf of respondent, Exs.R1 to R5 were got marked. 6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there is no untoward incident and hence, dismissed the claim of the appellant. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was having a valid ticket to travel from Hazrath Nizamuddin to Hyderabad; that after the appellant boarded the train he came to know that the train was not going to Hyderabad and that he has no other go except to jump from the train; and that while jumping from the train he fell in between the train and the platform and therefore, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that even as per the evidence of appellant it is not a case of untoward incident, as the appellant voluntarily jumped from the running train; that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation; and that after elaborate consideration of evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. Under Section 124A of the Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking the Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicant to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train. 11. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, Dhone, Kurnool District and others[1], it is held thus: “On the analysis above we conclude that the expression “untoward incident” in Section 124 – A of the Act, which has been defied inter alia, to mean the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers (in sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act) does not comprehend injury or death occasioned by his negligence, carelessness, wrongful act or prohibited conduct, disregard of the requisite standard of care obligated by a person traveling on a train or any such conduct of a passenger which much reasonably be expected to result in his injury or death, as a resultant injury or death would, in such circumstances, be the consequence of a self-inflicted injury.” So, from the above decision it is clear that untoward incident means any incident, which is at the fault on the part of the railways. Even according to the evidence adduced by the appellant, it is a case where the appellant voluntarily jumped from the running train, though he is not supposed to jump. Every person must know the consequences of his acts. Therefore, in this case also, there is utter disregard of standard of care, required to be taken by the appellant. Therefore, under any stretch of imagination when a person on his own accord jumps from the running train, it cannot be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act. Therefore, considering these aspects and following the said judgment, it is clear that the fault is on the part of the appellant. For the own fault of the appellant there cannot be any compensation. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12 Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 06, 2010 MD [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B)