IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 23-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.449 of 2008 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND D.Veera Babu --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.449 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.378 of 2002 dated 28-01-2008 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following injuries said to have been received by the respondent/applicant, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A.No.378 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicant, are as follows: On 18-10-2002 the applicant/injured purchased a group ticket bearing No.14694343 for himself, two adults and child from Vijayawada to Nidadavolu and while he was trying to aboard train No.429 Vijayawada- Rajahmundry fast passenger, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the train between the platform and train due to sudden jerks or movement of the train as a result of which his right hand was cut and separated below its shoulder. Immediately he was shifted to the government hospital by the railway staff through railway police for necessary treatment and subsequently he was shifted to the Government District hospital, Rajahmundry. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the pleas of the applicant claiming that the applicant did not fall from the train and he would not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) and main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and prayed to dismiss the claim. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal: 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.429 Vijayawada-Rajahmundry Fast passenger travelling from Viayawada to Nidadavolu along with family members under group ticket bearing No.146943 on 18-10-2002? 2) Whether the Applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Vijayawada Rly.station? 3) Whether the Applicant was negligent in attempting to board the 429 rake from yard to platform No.3 and sustained injuries amounting to self inflicted injuries and the Railways are not liable to pay compensation under Sec.124A? 4) Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.3,20,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he himself got examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R.1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant and awarded compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- directing the respondent to deposit the amount before it together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A has been preferred. 8. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the case would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the applicant is entitled to necessary compensation? and 3) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly? 9. POINTS:- It is mainly contended on behalf of the respondent that the case would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such the applicant is not entitled for the compensation and the order passed by the Tribunal is not tenable. 10. The main question involved in the appeal is as to whether the case would fall within the ambit of Section 123 C and the main limb of Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 reads 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.” 11. On the other hand in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS, considering various aspects the Supreme Court observed under similar circumstances : “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.” 12. By virtue of this decision coupled with the provisions of Section 123-C and 124-A of the Railways Act 1989, it is clear that even such people fall within the ambit of the main limb of section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled for necessary compensation. 13. The Tribunal properly examined the matter and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. The points are answered accordingly. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 23-03-2011. VJL