THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. Nos. 978 and 990 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: In one and the same accident, husband died and wife received severe injuries. Therefore, two claim applications have been filed, namely, O.A.A. No. 86 of 1999 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of Md. Hashim in the untoward incident of accidental fall from the railway train on 21.10.1999 at 19.00 hours, by the dependents of the deceased. Likewise, O.A.A. No. 85 of 1999 was filed by the wife of the deceased, claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the injuries suffered by her in the same accident. Appellant is the Union of India through the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad and respondents are wife and children of the deceased and in O.A.A. No. 85 of 1999, injured herself is the claimant. It appears, on 21.1.1999 the applicant in O.A.A. No. 85 of 1999, along with her deceased husband went to Kakinada Railway Station to give send-off to their daughter and son-in-law, who were proceeding from Kakinada to Secunderabad by Train No.7047 Gautami Express and her husband purchased two platform tickets to help them in placing the luggage. Even before the train started, herself and her husband were alighting from the train and in that process slipped and fell down accidentally due to sudden movement and jerk by the train and as a consequential result applicant-wife sustained multiple fracture injuries and her husband Md. Hasham died on the spot. Hence, two claim petitions were filed, claiming compensation. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together and tried. Respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the stand of the applicants and stated that the claim itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts as the incident in question does not fall within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ and that the applicant-wife and her husband were not at all passengers of Train No. 7047 on 21.1.1999. As per the statement of the applicant-wife, herself and her husband were holding platform tickets. While so, as per Rule 120.1 to 120.3 of IRCA Coaching Tariff No. 25, Part-I, Vol.1, a platform ticket or platform ticket holder is not entitled to remain in any carriage of railway. As platform ticket holders, they are eligible for admission up to station platform but they cannot enter in any carriage of train, as such they are not bona fide passengers. In fact, they unauthorizedly entered the carriage while it was in motion and they tried to alight hurriedly which resulted in sustaining injuries to the wife and death of her husband. It does not amount to accidental fall but it is self-inflicted injury for which respondent-Railways cannot be held liable. On the basis of the above, the following issues were framed: O.A. No. 85 of 1999: 1. Whether applicant No.1 had purchased platform ticket to give send off to her daughter and son in law and same to be treated as bona fide passenger defined under Section 124-A of Railways Act? 2. Whether applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train while getting down at Kakinada Railway Station after placing luggage in the compartment? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief? O.A.A. No. 86 of 1999: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Md. Asham? 2. Whether the deceased had purchased platform tickets to give send off to his daughter and son in law who were traveling in Train No. 7047 Kakinada – Secunderabad Express and same amounts to bona fide passenger as defined in Section 124-A of Railways Act? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train while alighting from the train after placing the luggage in the compartment? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the applicants, applicant-wife was examined as AW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Railways, RW-1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal gave finding issues framed by it, in favour of the applicants, holding that the applicant-wife and her husband were bona fide passengers and, therefore, they are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, wife and children were granted compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of Md. Hashim. Likewife, applicant in OAA No. 85 of 1999 was granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. Aggrieved thereby, these two appeals have been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.H.R. Chowdary strenuously contended that firstly it cannot be treated as an untoward incident and accidental fall from a passenger train. Secondly, they were not holding any platform tickets. Even otherwise, they are not entitled to enter into a railway passenger carriage. At the most, they are entitled to enter the railway station. Apart from that, husband jumped from the moving train and, while getting down, the saree of applicant-wife was stuck and, therefore, she was dragged down and while helping the wife, her husband fell down and died in the accident. Therefore, it cannot be called an untoward incident and accidental fall from the railway train. It is nothing but self-inflicted injury of their own negligence and absolutely there is no negligence on the part of the railways. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are arbitrary, contrary to the evidence available on record and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-applicants strenuously contended that this is a case where, when the daughter and son-in-law were going to Hyderabad, boarding Train No.7047 Gouthami Express, husband and wife, as parents, went to railway station, purchased platform tickets and entered the carriage to help the daughter in placing the luggage and even before train moved, they were getting down and suddenly, when there was a jerk, though the husband jumped out, the saree of the wife was stuck and she was dragged and in the process of saving the wife, husband was crashed and died on the spot. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was not an untoward incident of accidental fall from railway train. The Tribunal has furnished cogent reasons to hold that wife and husband were bona fide passengers and the applicants are entitled for compensation. No ground is made out calling for interference into the Award passed by the Tribunal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, it is noticed from the material available on record, that absolutely the applicant-Railways has not placed any evidence to show that the deceased as well as his wife (applicant in OAA No. 85 of 1989) have sustained injuries on account of their negligent act and therefore the Railways is not liable for payment of compensation. On the other hand, Ex.A-2 inquest report shows that the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased and his wife are panchas to the inquest report. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, Rule 120.3 states that a platform ticket does not entitle its holder to remain in carriage of a railway but it does not prohibit a person from boarding the train to keep any luggage. Therefore, it is clear that this is a case where the husband and wife went to Railway Station to give send-off to the daughter and son-in-law who were leaving by Gouthami Express Train No. 7047 on 21.10.1999 at 19.00 hours and while getting down, in view of sudden jerk the wife had fallen down and the husband went in rescue of his wife. It is unfortunate that the husband died and wife sustained as many as 10 severe injuries including one fracture on hip joint. Ex.A-6 is the O.P. Chit issued by the Govt. General Hospital, Kakinada which shows that the applicant-wife was admitted in the hospital on 21.1.1999 and discharged on 15.3.1999 for giving necessary treatment. Ex.A-8 wound certificate discloses that the applicant-wife sustained 10 injuries. In fact, even the injury Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were also found to be fractured injuries. But, it appears, they are not the scheduled injuries. As per item No.29, Part-III of Schedule, a compensation of Rs.80,000/- is permissible in case of fracture of hip joint and compensation of Rs.80,000/- can be awarded for the non-scheduled injuries. Therefore, considering all the aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of husband and amount of Rs.1.60,000/- for the injuries suffered by the wife. Learned counsel for the appellant-Railways raised a contention that for the fracture of hip joint under Item No.29 of Part-III of the Schedule, wife was entitled for Rs.80,000/-, but she was not entitled for another Rs.80,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal for the other injuries suffered by her. As per the proviso to Rule 3(3), total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed Rs.40,000/- It appears, this Rule is applicable in case of non-schedule injuries being minor in nature. But, Rule 4 says “notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3, total compensation payable under that Rule shall in no case exceed Rs.4.00 lakhs in respect of any one person”. In this case, admittedly, wife suffered as many as 10 injuries as noticed above. Injury Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are fracture injuries – may be they are not scheduled injuries. Therefore, while invoking its discretionary jurisdiction under Rule 4, the Tribunal has rightly granted another Rs.80,000/- for the rest of the injuries suffered by the wife. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.80,000/- for the fracture of hip joint and another Rs.80,000/- for the severe injuries suffered by the wife. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court into the Award passed by the Tribunal, under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunals Act. Both the C.M.As. are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 5-8-2010. MVB.