IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 117 OF 2008 Between : G.Chandrasekar. …APPELLANT A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 117 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’), is directed against the order, dated 02.11.2007, in O.A.A.No.83 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellant- applicant claiming compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the applicant, and the respondent in the C.M.A. 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 O.A.A. stating that, on 31.10.2002, he purchased a passenger train ticket to go from Jadcherla to Shadnagar and boarded the train at Jadcherla. While the train was passing through the L.C.Gate, he slipped and fell down accidentally due to sudden jerk of the said train. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to a hospital and during the course of treatment, his left leg was amputated at the middle of the thigh. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent - Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that when train No.526 was passing through the gate, suddenly a person came running and attempted to catch the running train and in that process he slipped and fell down from the train; that the applicant tried to board the moving train after it had left the station; that it is a case of self inflicted injury and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.526 Up Dronachalam-Secunderabad passenger traveling from Jadcherla to Shadnagar on 31.10.2002? 2. Whether the Applicant was a victim of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and sustained injuries? 3. Whether the Applicant was negligent in catching the moving train at L.C.Gate No.47 and slipped and fell down and injuries sustained by him amounts to self inflicted injuries which is one of the exceptions under Section 124-A of Railways Act? 4. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.3,20,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident as prayed ? 5. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, he examined himself as AW-1 and Exs. A1 and A2 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant contended that the word ‘negligence’ cannot be a ground for dismissing the claim application; that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the applicant; that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application; that therefore, are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Unless the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act, the claim application cannot be dismissed. Negligence on the part of the deceased is not a ground for dismissing the claim application under Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident, as he had fallen from the running train, he is entitled for compensation. The evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that about half of the thigh above the knee of the left leg was imputed. That aspect of the case has not been disputed. As per item No.18 of part –III of Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the amount of compensation payable for amputation of left leg above the knee is Rs.2,80,000/-. 10 Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of Award and @ 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization. However, the appellant is not entitled to withdraw the interest from the date of petition till the date of Award granted by this Court for a period of two months from today, in view of the fact that the respondent- railways said to have filed a review application before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others (2009 ACJ 2444) with regard to the interest. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 09, 2010 YVL