HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.847 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the South Central Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2008 in O.A.A.No.112 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Rayeni Nageswaramma (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), who is the wife and mother of the applicants respectively, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of that order till the date of payment. 2. The facts relating to the case are that on 17.03.2003 the deceased along with her husband and son, with a view to go to Warangal for doing coolie work, reached Kavali Railway Station at about 9.30 P.M. and purchased three separate journey ticket Nos.90547, 90548 and 90549 and also a joint surcharge ticket to travel by train No.2759 Charminar Express. When they were waiting for the train on the platform, suddenly there was heavy downpour and thunderstorms, as a result of which the passengers on the platform started running helter-skelter and that some of the running passengers pushed the deceased down, due to which the deceased lost consciousness and that she was immediately shifted to hospital, where she was found dead. 3. The appellant-Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the incident does not come within the purview of Section 123 ( c ) or 124-A of the Railways Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that even if it is assumed that the deceased died due to thunderstorm and lightening, the incident comes under exception (e) to Section 124-A of the Act for which Railways are not liable to pay compensation and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief ? 5. During enquiry, applicant No.1 himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways submits that the alleged incident of accidental fall is not an untoward incident and it attracts provisions of Section 124 (B) and (C) of the Act, where the death occurred due to the own act or negligence of a person, for which the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents-applicants submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied; firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train with a valid ticket. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. The cause of death as recited in Exs.A-3 and A-4 would clearly go to show that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by her. On the date of incident, there was heavy downpour and thunderstorms, as a result of which the passengers on the platform started running helter-skelter and due to violent attack by the passengers on the Railway platform, the deceased, who was waiting for a train, sustained injuries and died. On this aspect, the learned Counsel for the respondents-applicants placed a reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court reported in Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway V. Krishnan Kumar Goel[1], wherein it is held as under: “In this regard reference has been made by the learned Judge to the Calcutta High Court judgment of Shyamal Baran Saha V. State of West Bengal and others (2001 ACJ 1279), in which the Court held that the State having failed and neglected to take adequate measures to ensure safety, security and well being of the people who had stood in the queue and the police arrangement being ineffective and inadequate, the State is liable for negligence for the breach of their lawful duties towards the plaintiff”. 12. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the death of the deceased, which has occurred in a stampede by the passengers on the railway platform, amounts to an untoward incident and as such the Railway administration is liable to pay compensation for the same. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondents-applicants are entitled for compensation and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is quite legal and justified and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others V. Union of India and another[2], the respondents-applicants are entitled for simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 10-08-2011 Gsn. [1] 2011 (1) An.W.R. 359 (Del.) [2] 2009 ACJ 2444