THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 753 of 2007 04th March, 2011 Between: The Union of India Rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad … Petitioner And M. Ummaial and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 753 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 17-07-2007 in R.P.No.2 of 2007 in O.A.A.No.188 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the said proceedings. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the application. 2. In fact, the application was rejected on the ground of non- production of relevant family member certificate. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the review petition was filed. The claim of the applicants is as follows: The applicants were the wife and children of one S.P. Mani (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). On 25-05-1997, the deceased, along with his son M. Muthukumar (A.W.2) boarded Train No.7685 Kachiguda-Bangalore Express at Kachiguda for the purpose of going to Bangalore, holding valid tickets and A.W.2 could secure a berth in the general compartment of the train whereas the deceased sat near him and then A.W.2 went into sleep and later found his father (i.e. the deceased), missing. Further, in fact the deceased fell down from the train and received injuries and died. Further, he (A.W.2) handed over the journey tickets at the exit gate of the railway station and later he reported the matter to the railway station officials. Further, the deceased was bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the application was filed. 3. The respondent filed written statement denying the claim of the applicants totally. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- i. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased S.P.Mani? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7685 Kachiguda-Bangalore express traveling from Secunderabad to Bangalore on 25-05-1997? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Ramarajupalli and Kalluru Railway stations? iv. To what relief? 5. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced in support of the claim of the applicant. 6. Examining the material on record, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000, and directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the order till the date of realization of the amount. Challenging the award by the Tribunal, the respondent filed the present appeal. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased fell down from the train because of his own negligent act and therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger of the train even though the circumstances of the case prove that he was holding a valid ticket for travelling by the train and therefore the case is hit by the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railway Act. 8. The Section 124-A of the Railway Act 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.” 9. In UNION OF INDIA v. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHERS[1], the Supreme Court observed that if a passenger of a train falls down from a moving train or while getting into the train falls down therefrom and receives injuries holding a valid ticket, still he is to be covered by the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 10. By virtue of Section 2(29) of the Act, he is to be termed as a passenger of the train if he was holding a valid ticket and travelled by the train about which there is no dispute in fact. When definitely in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Act would not fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act, therefore, for the reasons enumerated, the contentions of learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 04th March, 2011 KSM [1] (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527