IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.18-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1146 OF 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Manchikalapudi Sundara Rao and another. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1146 OF 2008 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 06-01-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.137 of 2001, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Section 124-A 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 M. Ravi Kumar (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.137 of 2001. 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 18-04-2001 the deceased having valid monthly season ticket to go to Guntur from Mangalagiri boarded train No.154 Vijayawada - Guntur passenger along with his colleague Suresh and two others and accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in between the platform and the train and received injuries and subsequently he was shifted to University General Hospital, Vijayawada, where he was succumbed to the injuries received by him and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the application. 4. The respondent filed written statement totally denying the pleas taken by the applicants and further claiming that one person suddenly came running towards the train which was moving fastly and tried to catch it but in the process fell down and received injuries and therefore the accident took place only because of his negligence and carelessness which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries by reason of which the claim 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 M. Ravi Kumar? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.154 passenger traveling from Mangalagiri to Guntur on monthly season ticket on 18-04-2001? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Mangalagiri Railway Station? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as AW.1 and also got examined one Suresh as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 which happened to be season ticket of the deceased, tickets of his colleagues and relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest Report and Post Mortem Examination Report, Death Certificate and Legal Heir certificate respectively. Further, on behalf of the respondent the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and the Station Superintendent of Mangalagiri railway station was examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3 which happened to be relevant copies of Rough Journal, Control Book Entry and entry in station diary respectively. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- directing the respondent to pay the same within 60 days from the date of order and in case of delay to pay interest at 6% per annum from the due date till realization further directing that the compensation be apportioned equally between the applicants. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent- Railways. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1 where as the dispute is with regards to the findings given under the issues Nos.2 to 4. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased fell down from the train because of his own negligence and carelessness by reason of which he received injuries which act would fall within the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore the Tribunal should have dismissed the application. 10. Therefore it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the deceased and whether it falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section n124-A of the Railways Act to disentitle the applicants from making the claim in question? and 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is tenable or not? 11. Point No.1: Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 is as follows : “Untoward incident” means – (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity ; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station : or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. 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.” 12. In UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], it was observed : “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.” So by virtue of the decision cited supra, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and still they are to be brought within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Act. Further as the decision cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed and as such the applicants are entitled to the compensation under the first limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act treating the incident as “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act. 13. Point no.2: The Tribunal examined 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 Dated: 18-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895