IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.21-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.967 OF 2008 Between: 1. G. Balaiah (Died) 2. G. Hanumamma. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.967 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 31-01-2007 passed in O.A.A. No.212 of 2002 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Gadapaga Srinivas (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) son of the applicants, dismissing the claim. 2. Whereas the appellants are the applicants the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A No.212 of 2002. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The first applicant died during the proceedings of the application. 4. The claim of the applicants is as follows : On 09-07-2002 the deceased boarded train No.524 passenger from Devarakadra to Secunderabad with a valid journey ticket and got down at Jadcherla railway station for drinking water and while boarding the train he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries and then he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, where he died while undergoing treatment and the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and hence the applicants who are the parents of the deceased are entitled to the compensation claimed. 5. The respondent filed written statement claiming that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore it was not an untoward incident and it would not fall within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Railways Act for which no compensation could be paid to the applicants. 6. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased Gadapaga Srinivas, died on 09- 07-2002? 2. Whether the deceased G. Srinivas was a bona fide passenger travelled by train No.524 passenger from Devarakadra to Secunderabad and that he fell down from the train attracting the definition of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined himself as AW.1 and also got examined brother of the deceased as AW.2 and got marked EXs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the Respondent, Assistant Station Master of Jadcherla railway station was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R-1 was marked. 8. Taking into consideration the material available on record, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining issues in favour of the respondent and against the applicants and dismissed the claim. 9. The only question which falls for consideration now is whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the deceased and as such the applicants are entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and its order is tenable or not? 10. Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 is 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.” 11. In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], it is observed “Such acts would not come within the purview of any 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 are also to be termed as bona fide passengers which entitle them to get necessary compensation. It is to be emphasized that none of the exceptions covers the act of trying to aboard a running train which results in slipping and falling down and receiving serious injuries”. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed. 12. So, therefore by virtue of the decision cited supra such victims would fall within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act and would not fall within the ambit of exceptions provided therein. Therefore, it is to be held that it happened to be untoward incident, ultimately the applicants are entitled to necessary compensation as prayed for. 13. For the foregoing decisions the applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of decree and at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of decree till the date of realisation of the amount. Further, the first applicant is no more, the entire amount of compensation awarded is to be paid to the second applicant. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. to the second applicant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of decree and at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date.21-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895