IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.03-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.813 OF 2007 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND V. Srinivas @ Musunuru Srinivas. --- Respondent/ Applicant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.813 OF 2007 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 26-04-2007, passed in O.A.A. No.404 of 2003 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of 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/- on account of sustaining injuries in a train accident at Falaknuma railway station, partly allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.404 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicant on 23-12-2003 while traveling along with his relatives by train No.548 Mahabubnagar – Secunderabad passenger from Budvel to Secunderabad holding valid tickets bearing Nos.08491, 08492 and 08493 accidentally slipped and fell down at Falaknuma Railway station and sustained severe injuries. Immediately the train was stopped at the railway station, Railway Officials administered first aid at Falaknuma and shifted him to Osmania General Hospital for treatment wherein his left leg was amputated. Further, the applicant being a bona fide passenger of the train is entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicant and further claiming that there was no cause of action for the applicant to file the application because the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such there was no untoward incident and ultimately prayed to dismiss the claim of the applicant. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 3) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 which happened to be original ticket, G.D. Extract and Discharge Certificate from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined but got marked Divisional Manager’s Report as Ex.R-1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the applicant awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with a direction that after the deposit of the amount the applicant could withdraw Rs.50,000/- with a further direction that the balance amount should be kept in Fixed Deposit Account for a period of three years in any nationalized Bank with a liberty to draw periodical interest accrued thereon and further directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of order, failing which to carry interest at 6% p.a. from the due date till the date of realization. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1 and also about the accident, whereas the dispute is with regards to whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which is an exception under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that though the deceased was holding valid ticket to travel by the train the circumstances of the case prove that the applicant sat on the foot board of the train placing his legs out side and when the train reached Falaknuma railway station platform his leg was cut in between the platform and foot board which clearly proves that the applicant received self inflicted injuries due to his own negligence which falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence its order is liable to be set aside. 10. Now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the applicant is not entitled to any compensation? 3) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 11. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the applicant along with his relatives were bona fide passengers of the train having valid tickets bearing Nos.08491, 08492 and 08493 to travel from Budvel to Secunderabad railway stations and immediately after the incident the Railway Officials administered first aid to him at Falaknuma and shifted him to Osmania General Hospital for treatment where he was treated as inpatient for a period of about two months i.e., from 23-12-2003 to 27-02-2004 and his left leg was amputated. Therefore, these circumstances are sufficient to hold that the applicant traveled by the train holding valid ticket and met with the untoward accident. Further, by virtue of the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], such acts would not come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Act and the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such victims or their kith and kin, it is to be liberally construed and hence they would fall within the first limb of section 124-A of the Act and are also to be termed as bona fide passengers which entitle them to get necessary compensation. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed. 12. Point No.3: 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: 03-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC)