IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.10-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.67 OF 2007 Between: Union of Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Mir Yousuf Ali and another. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.67 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the RCT Act’), against order dated 18-08-2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.A. No.276 of 2000 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of one Mohammed Shoukath Ali in allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the O.A.A. No.276 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the application. 3. The applicants’ claim is that the deceased who happened to be their son while traveling by Bhagyanagar Fast Passenger No.7234 on 20-11-2000 in order to go to Bhongir to Secunderabad on a season ticket fell down from the train, received injuries and died at Bhongir railway station and he was a bona fide passenger of the train and hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the claim of the applicants. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Mohd. Shoukath Ali? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7234 Sirpur Kagaznagar – Secunderabad Bhagyanagar Express/Fast Passenger traveling from Bhongir to Secunderabad on a season ticket on 20-11- 2000? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Bhongir railway station and succumbed to injuries in the hospital while undergoing treatment on the same day at 14-12 hours? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined himself as AW.1 and one Mir Arif Ali was examined as AW.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 which happened to be relevant copies of Admission slip of Out Patient Department issued by the Government Hospital, Hyderabad, F.I.R., Inquest Report and Post-mortem Certificate, Death Certificate, Death Summary Certificate and Ration Card. Further, on behalf of the respondent, the Station Superintendent, Bhongir railway station, was examined as RW.1 and memo sent by the Station Superintendent, Bhongir, to the Government Railway Police was marked as Ex.R-1 and Station Diary of Bhongir railways station was marked as Ex.R-2. 7. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and accordingly disposed of the matter with a direction that the amount awarded should be deposited within sixty (60) days from the date of order otherwise it would carry 6% interest p.a. from the due date till the date of realization. 8. It is the main contention of learned counsel for the respondents that there is clear evidence to the effect that the deceased negligently and carelessly tried to get down from the train and in that process received injuries and died and hence by virtue of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal erroneously allowed the application. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly considered as to whether the said act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries and fall within the exceptions provided under sections 124-A of the Act and the Tribunal failed to consider the matter properly and hence its order is to be set aside. Section 124-A of the Act reads as follows : “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.” Further the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others[1] it was observed 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.” 10. It is significant to note here that the Supreme Court considered the question of such victims catching hold of a running train, slipping and falling down and receiving injuries and also question of such victims trying to get down from a moving train and slipping, falling down and receiving injuries and ultimately gave verdict that those acts would not come within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act whereas in spite of involving in such acts they are to be termed as bona fide passengers of the train. The observation of the Supreme Court is quite applicable here and hence the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 10-02- 2011. DSH [1] 2008 ACJ 1895