IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.01-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.21 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Patan Asadulla Khan and another. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.21 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 16-10-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.174 of 2004, 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 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Patan Khaleel Khan (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.174 of 2004. 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 happened to be the parents of the deceased. On 19-12-2003 the deceased was traveling along with others in train No.2806 Janmabhoomi express to go to Vizag from Vijayawada and in between Telaprole - Nuziveedu railway stations at KM No.464 of 2010 while the train was in motion, the deceased slipped and fell down due to sudden jerks of the train and immediately the train was stopped and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Eluru, for treatment and later he was taken to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada, for better treatment but there he succumbed to the injuries received by him. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train holding valid ticket bearing No.168533679. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that being not a bona fide passenger of the train, he fell down from the running train by his negligence and carelessness which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries and therefore the application should 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.2806 Janmabhumi Express, traveling from Vijayawada to Vizag on 19-12-2003? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined himself as A.W.1 and also got examined one Pathan Rahamatullah Khan as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and on behalf of the respondent, nobody was examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, including the inquest report it is observed by the Tribunal that there is no dispute that the deceased traveled by the train holding valid ticket and the act of the deceased would not fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under Sections 124-A of the Railways Act and accordingly allowed the application directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization after apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- each to the applicants 1 and 2. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the Present Appeal has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the first issue. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the act of the deceased would amount to only negligence and careless act and consequently causing of self inflicted injuries and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and the application should be dismissed. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not? 10. 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.” In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], it was held as follows : “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains since everybody can not afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion the present case is clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 11. Therefore, by virtue of the decision cited, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and still they are to be treated as bona fide passengers of the trains by which they traveled or intended to travel. Further as the decision cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case without costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 01-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895