THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 943 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2006 in O.A.A.No.62 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the applicant, and the respondent in the appeal is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed the claim application stating that on 14.01.2002, while she was travelling by train No.526, due to hit by the stone on her left eye, she sustained injury. The incident had taken place after the train passed Sivarampalli railway station and the matter was reported to the Guard of the train at Falaknuma. The injuries were sustained by the applicant due to hit by stone in an untoward incident. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stating that the stone with which the applicant was hit on the left eye came from outside the coach and so, this is not an untoward incident; that it does not attract Section 123 (c ) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.526 passenger travelling from Mahbubnagar to Secunderabad on 14.01.2002? 2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim compensation on account of sustaining injuries due to hit by a stone during the journey at Sivarampalli railway station? 3. Whether the Respondents are not liable to pay compensation? 4. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2 lakhs as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, the applicant examined herself as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application holding that the applicant has not suffered the injury in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c ) (2) of the Act. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passenger; that the applicant sustained injury to her left eye as someone pelted stone on her and as a result she sustained injury; that on the ground that the incident does not come under Section 123 ( c) of the Act, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application; that as it is a violent attack, the applicant is entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the incident does not amount to violent attack within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123 (c) of the Act, and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died or sustained injuries. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident while she was travelling in a train from Mahabubnagar to Secunderabad by holding second class journey ticket bearing No.02659349. The ticket number as mentioned in the Original Application is not shown to be invalid ticket. The evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that while she was travelling with her husband, some unknown person threw stone through the window and as a result, she sustained injury to her left eye. The Tribunal held that the applicant was a bona fide passenger but she did not sustain injury in an untoward incident in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in First Appeal Nos.177 and 180 of 2002, dated 27.02.2002. The term ‘violent attack’ is not defined under Section 123 of the Act. But, it must mean an attack made by a third person while a person was travelling in a train carrying passengers. The evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that she sustained injury to her left eye by a stone hit. 12. In a decision reported in Union of India vs.Sanjay Sampatrao[1], it is held thus: “An act of stranger is made an exception even to the doctrine of strict liability of the owner. It would therefore be clear that the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the injury sustained by its passenger on account of a stone thrown by an outsider from the outside of the train and therefore the Railway Administration cannot be held liable to pay compensation for the act of a stranger who threw the stone at the train and at the passenger on the Railway precincts as such an incident does not fall within the definition of “untoward incident” under Section 123 (c ) of the Act.” From the above decision it is clear that in case of stone pelting by a miscreant, the railway administration cannot be held liable to pay compensation for the act of a stranger. In this case an unknown person, who was not a passenger in a train threw a stone on the applicant and as a result she sustained injury to her left eye and she lost 80% of the vision. From a combined reading of Section 123 and 124-A of the Act, it is clear that the intention of the legislature was to compensate a person who suffers an injury or death while travelling in a train carrying passengers after obtaining a valid ticket. The Railways have got its own separate police force. Railway administration is duty bound to see or make all arrangements of protection of the passengers for their safety till their destination. The expression ‘untoward incident’ involves an element of some violence when an outsider threw stone at the compartment resulting an injury caused to one of the passengers travelling in a train carrying passengers, certainly it is an unlawful act which comes under the purview of ‘untoward incident’. In other words, it is a violent attack made on passengers. Therefore, in such violent attack on the passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation. As per item No.27 of part –III of Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the amount of compensation payable for loss of vision of one eye without complications of disfigurement of eye ball, the other being normal, is Rs.1,20,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 10, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 943 OF 2008 Between : P.Ramakumari …APPELLANT A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT [1] AIR 2002 Bombay 436