IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 22-03-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.268 of 2008 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND Jakkamsetti Satyam @ Satyanarayana and another Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.268 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) to set aside order passed in O.A.A.No.349 of 2001 dated 18-12-2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the said Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of one Jakkamsetti Murali, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.349 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the application. 3. The facts of the case as set out by the applicants are as follows : On 11-04-2000 the deceased went to Tadepalligudem railway station, having purchased a platform ticket, to receive his brother-in- law who was coming from Bombay by 1019 Konark express and was waiting for the arrival of the said train. At that time, another train came with a load of iron roads, which were protruding outside as a result of which the iron rods hit the deceased by reason of which the deceased received serious injuries and subsequently died. Hence the application was filed. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the claim of the applicants on the ground that the act of the deceased would fall within the .ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and there was no untoward incident as defined in Section 123( c)(2) of the said Act and prayed to dismiss the application. 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 Jakkamsetti Murali? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of Railways Act? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined himself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation directing the respondent to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- payable to the applicants within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt such copy of the order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1 whereas there is dispute about the findings given under the other issues. 9. The main point to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the case falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and whether there was any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. 10. 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.” 11. On the other hand, in a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], 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. So by virtue of the above decision, 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 even such persons also fall within the ambit of the main limb of that Section and Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed. 13. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 22-03-2011. VJL [1] 2008 ACJ 1895