IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 04-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.176 OF 2006 Between: Durki Arjun and another. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.176 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act) is directed by the appellants/applicants against order dated 16-12-2005 passed in O.A.A. No.35 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) where under and whereby application filed by the appellants/applicants was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.176 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 4. The case set out in the application is as follows : The applicants are the parents of Durki Haridas who involved in the accident in question on the mid night of 12-11-2000. The deceased purchased a ticket bearing No.23979 in order to go to Sirpurkagaznagar town from Sirpurkagaznagar and while traveling by train No.336 Kazipet – Nagpur passenger, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down at KM No.185/15-17 between Vempalli and Sirpur Town and received injuries and died on the spot. Further the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and hence the appellants being his parents are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicants totally. Further, it is its case that no untoward incident took place and it may be that the deceased sustained self inflicted injuries. It is specifically denied that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Ultimately it is pleaded to dismiss the application. 6. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased D. Haridas? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.336 passenger traveling from Sirpurkagaznagar to Sirpur town on the intervening night of 12/13-11-2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at KM No.185/1 between Vempalli and Sirpur Railway stations? 4. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the applicants, none were examined but Exs.A-1 to A-5 were got marked. The original ticket was marked as Ex.C-3. On behalf of the respondent also none were examined. The Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and dismissed the application on the ground that the deceased was only holding a child ticket though aged about 18 years and hence he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Now in this Appeal it is to be mainly considered whether the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train in view of the fact that he traveled in the train by holding a child ticket being aged 18 years and adult?. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that there is no doubt that the deceased would be called as a bona fide passenger of the train if he was holding a valid ticket by virtue of Section 2 (29) which defines what is meant by passenger of the Railways Act, 1989, and though he was holding a child ticket there was no need for him to purchase it intentionally for the purpose of gaining some amount and in view of lack of his intention in doing so it can not be said that it is not a valid ticket and hence it is to be termed that he was a bona fide passenger of the train and as such the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Parisa Anjali and others Vs. Union of India,Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad[1] the facts of which are that the deceased concerned therein traveled by Ganga Kaveri Express having purchased a ticket for a different train and there was a question as to whether it happened to be a valid ticket or not, in respect of which it was observed : “Even if there is any possibility for treating the ticket held by the deceased, as not valid one, he does not cease to be a passenger, in the context of the extension of benefits provided under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act. What becomes material, in this regard, is the intention of the person, who was traveling in the train. It is only when the person boards the train with a clear intention to travel in it, without purchasing a ticket, that he can be treated as not a passenger. Take for instance a situation, where a person finds that the train in which he has to travel, is about to start, by the time he reached the station, and he does not have the time to purchase the ticket. Though he does not hold the ticket, he may still board the train with an intention to pay the fare to the TTE. Such a person can still be treated as bona fide passenger, both, when he boarded the train without ticket and after he pays the fare to the TTE and as such the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for compensation.” and he has also relied upon another decision of this Court reported in Godisela Rajamma and others Vs. Union of India through General Manager, South Central Railway[2] in the same context in which it is observed as follows : “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident – 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 or 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.” 16. However, as indicated above, five exceptions are provided in section 124-A and if the death of the passenger falls in any of those exceptions, no liability can be fastened on the railway administration for payment of compensation to the dependants of such deceased. If the railway administration satisfactorily proves the case that the death of the deceased falls within the five exceptions provided to section 124-A, then only the Tribunal can decline payment of compensation to the dependants. Here it is not the case of the respondent that the cause of death of the deceased falls within the five exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act.” But the decisions 1st and 2nd cited supra were rendered under different circumstances to apply here the same analogy laid down therein because the deceased concerned in this case traveled by the train holding only a child ticket and it is not a case of traveling by one train having purchased a ticket for different train which can be termed to have been done by mistake. It can not be countenanced that he was innocent of purchasing of proper ticket to travel by the train being aged 18 years and being adult. When he was adult the authorities would not have given him the child ticket when he tendered necessary amount to purchase ticket for him unless he appeared to be a child about which there is no basis. Even supposing that by mistake that ticket was purchased by somebody for him, he got the opportunity of examining it and ascertaining that it was not a proper ticket which would permit him to travel by the train. In case he himself purchased the ticket unless he represented to the concerned Ticket Issuing Clerk that it was for a child ticket such child ticket would not have been issued to him on payment of lesser fare compared to what was to be paid for purchasing a ticket for an adult member. It clearly appears that the deceased did so with the intention of gaining some amount. Hence he cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger of the train. The decisions cited are not applicable here. 10. The lower Court considered 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. Date: 04-02- 2011. DSH [1] 2010 (1) ALT 709 [2] 2003 ACJ 1404