IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.464 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Chokkalingam and two others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.464 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 24-04-2007, passed in O.A.A. No.157 of 2000, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Ch. Raja alias Rajeswari (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.157 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows : The applicants 1 and 3 happened to be parents of the deceased and second applicant happened to be minor sister of the deceased. On 01-04-2000 while the deceased was traveling from Gooty to Mumbai in train No.1082 Kanyakumkari express holding valid journey ticket bearing No.16183 accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train between Kuppagal and Kosigi railway stations from S-6 coach and died on the spot. Further, he happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants who happened to be his parents and minor sister are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the case of the applicants and further claiming that there was no cause of action for the applicants to file the application as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the application is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.1082 Kanyakumari Express traveling from Gooty to Bombay on 01-04-2000? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Kuppagal and Kosigi railway stations? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R. and Inquest report, journey ticket, Memo of Station Superintendent and Legal Heir Certificate. Further, on behalf of the respondent one Y. Pakiappa, Keyman, was examined as RW.1 and one M. Sreenivasulu Senior T.T.E was examined as RW.2 and no documents were marked. Further one G. Sreeramulu, H.C. Government Railway Police, was examined as CW.1 and Ex.C-1 Memo of the Station Superintendent and Exs.C-2 to C-5 statements of Fakeerappa, Srinivasulu, Venkateswarlu and Chokkalingam were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicants 1 and 3 and permitting them to immediately withdraw Rs.50,000/- each with a direction to keep the remaining amounts in fixed deposit accounts in any nationalized bank for a period of three years giving liberty to them to draw periodical interest thereon and further directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent-Railways. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that as per the record, the deceased traveled by reservation compartment (S- 6) only holding a general ticket and there is no basis to say that he was sitting in the reservation compartment for the purpose of securing a seat therein and on the other hand, he sat at the door of the reservation compartment and slipped and fell down from there by virtue of sudden jerks of the train and RW.1 concerned T.T.E. in the reservation compartment did not speak to the effect that the deceased was in the reservation compartment for the said purpose and hence it is to be deemed that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and further the case would fall under the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and hence in any case the claim is not tenable and the Tribunal failed to assess the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence its order is liable to be set aside. 9. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and whether its order is sustainable or not? 10. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is significant to note here that there is no dispute that the deceased traveled by the train sitting in the reservation compartment holding a general ticket. He might have entered in the sleeper coach with the intention of traveling by the same coach subject to paying excess fare as per the relevant rules and regulations. There is no evidence from RW.1 to the effect that any such offer was made by the deceased to travel by the sleeper coach paying excess fare. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is for the respondent to establish that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and as such the respondent ought to have elicited through RW.1 necessary evidence in that context and for not doing so an adverse inference is to be drawn against the respondent. Further, by virtue of the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], such acts would not come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Act and the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such victims or their kith and kin, it is to be liberally construed and hence they would fall within the first limb of Section 124-A of the Act which entitle them to get necessary compensation. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretation the same is to be followed. 11. Point No.3: The Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 03-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC)