HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.17 OF 2009 Dated 01-03-2011 Between: The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Appellant. And: Maddineni Madhu Babu and others …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.17 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), against order dated 16-10-2008 passed in O.A.A.No.203 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, Bench at Secunderabad. (2) The O.A.A. was filed under Sections 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with 124-A and 125 of the Act, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one M. Aruna Kumari (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’). (3) The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the application. (4) The case of the applicants is as follows: The applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased. On 15.08.2005, the deceased along with the applicants went to their native at Marlapalem, Krishna District, to attend a function and later they went to the Railway Station, Vijayawada, to go to Kolkata and purchased a second class reservation ticket bearing No.112-9226460 for two members including the deceased and some of them boarded S- 3 coach in train No.7046, East Coast Express, and while the deceased was trying to board the train, she slipped down from the train accidentally and received injuries and latter she was shifted to Global Hospital, Vijayawada, for treatment. But, there she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Further, she was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the claim. (5) On behalf of the respondent, written statement was filed claiming that the accident occurred only because of negligent act of the deceased and therefore, it would not be liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. (6) Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? (7) On behalf of the applicants, the first applicant got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Further, on behalf of the respondent, Head Travelling Ticket Examiner was examined as RW.1 and Senior Passenger Guard was examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2, which are Divisional Railway Manager’s Report and Guard’s Rough Journal respectively. (8) Basing on the material available on record, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and granted the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with a direction to the respondent to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of the order with a further direction to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment, in case, the amount was not deposited as directed and further, apportioning Rs.2,00,000/- to the first applicant and Rs.1,00,000/- each to second and third applicants. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. (9) On behalf of the respondent, it is argued that the act of the deceased would come only within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act; and that further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same properly and hence, the impugned order is to be set aside. (10) There is no dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train or otherwise. So, it has to be examined as to whether the death of the deceased comes within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act and the Tribunal’s order is sustainable or not. (11) In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others[1], the Supreme Court observed: “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 railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling 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 travelling 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.” (12) The same decision is applicable to the present facts of the case also. Therefore, the claim falls within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A and also 123 (c) and (d) of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent are not tenable. (13) In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 01-03-2011. Dvs/Md HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.17 OF 2009 Dated 01-03-2011 [1] (2008) 9 SCC 527