IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.427 & 433 OF 2006 Between: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.427 OF 2006 Upputholla Venkatamma and another. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.433 OF 2006 Upputholla Sankaramma and another. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.427 & 433 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These Appeals filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the RCT Act’) are directed against orders of dismissal dated 03-03-2006, passed in O.A.A. Nos.119 of 2001 and 120 of 2001, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) where under and whereby the applications filed by the appellants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- each by virtue of death of Upputholla Subbanna and Upputhola Chandraiah, were dismissed. 2. The Appellants herein are the Applicants and the respondents herein are the respondents in O.A.A.Nos.119 of 2001 and 120 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The pleas taken in the applications are as follows : The applicants in O.A.A. No.119 of 2001 happened to be the wife and son of the deceased Upputhola Subbanna and the applicants in O.A.A. No.120 of 2001 happened to be the wife and mother of the deceased Upputhola Chandraiah. On 13-08-1999, the deceased boarded train No.7494 Balaji Express, at Kodur to go to Nandalur whereas there was no stop of the train at Nandalur railway station. When the train reached Nandalur railway station, they slipped and fell down and received injuries and died on the spot due to the jerks of the train. Further, they happened to be bona fide passengers of the train. Hence, the two claims are made. 4. The respondent filed separate written statements denying the claims made by the applicants and further contending that because there was no stop at Nandalur, the deceased jumped out of the train which resulted in the unfortunate incident which therefore comes under the caption of “self inflicted injuries.” Further, after the departure of the train from Nandalur railway station, one person was found dead and another was found with injuries. Ultimately pleaded to dismiss the applications. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased U. Chandraiah and U. Subbanna? 2. Whether on 13.08.99 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether on 13.08.99 the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Sec.123 of the Railways Act? 4. Whether the claim is barred by time? 5. Relief and costs? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and examined one Chapalli Srinivasulu as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. 7. On the basis of material available on record, the Tribunal held the issues Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the applicants and held the issues Nos.3 to 5 against the applicants on the ground that when there was no stop at Nandalur, the deceased tried to get down from the running train and received injuries which would amount to negligence and carelessness on their part and as such, the matters are to be brought within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and with that observation, the Tribunal dismissed the applications. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been preferred. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that it is to be very much emphasized that admittedly, the deceased were holding valid tickets while traveling by the train and in fact, they only slipped and fell down from the train and there is no proof to say that they jumped out of the train and there was negligence or carelessness on their part and hence, they are to be treated as bona fide passengers of the train and accordingly, the applicants are entitled to the compensation amounts claimed. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that A.W.2 clearly deposed that he travelled along with the deceased from Kodur and when the train reached Nandalur, he and the deceased tried to get down from the train when it was in slow motion, but in the process, the deceased fell down from the train and the circumstances of the case amply prove that the deceased tried to get out of the train as the train reached their destination which clearly amounts to negligence and carelessness on their part which would fall within the purview of the exceptions brought under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It is also contended by him that the case falls within the ambit of the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SECUNDERABAD v. KURUKUNDU BALAKRISHNAIAH, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1]. 10. In reply thereto, it is contended that there is no basis to say that there was stop for the train at Nandalur and as such, it cannot be claimed that when the train reached the destination, the deceased tried to get out of the train even though it was running. 11. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issues Nos.1 and 4. In the decision 1st cited supra, it is observed under similar circumstances at para No.80 as follows : “On the analysis above we conclude that the expression “untoward incident” in Sec.124-A of the Act, which has been defined inter alia to mean the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers (in sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act) does not comprehend injury or death occasioned by his negligence, carelessness, wrongful act or prohibited conduct, disregard of the requisite standard of care obligated by a person traveling on a train or any such conduct of a passenger which might reasonably be expected to result in his injury or death, as a resultant injury or death would, in such circumstances, be the consequence of a self-inflicted injury”. In a decision of Supreme Court reported in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and others[2] the facts of which are that it was pleaded on behalf of the respondents-applicants therein that the deceased concerned therein fell down from a train and then the train ran over her and an eye witness examined deposed that the deceased fell down when the train was moving and the Station Master of concerned railway station deposed that the deceased attempted to board the train which was running and fell down and received injuries and hence there was no fault on the part of the Railways and a question arose as to whether the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and the respondents therein would be entitled to necessary compensation, it is observed that in any case, the accident would not fall within the ambit of exceptions mentioned in the clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and amount to untoward incident and the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and accordingly the respondents were entitled to the compensation claimed. 12. When it is the claim of the respondent that there was no stop at Nandalur railway station, it has to prove that aspect but no satisfactory evidence has been placed in that behalf for which adverse inference is to be drawn. There is no need now to discuss whether such circumstances can be brought within the purview of the concept of bona fide passenger of the train. When it is to be held that there was no stoppage at Nandalur railway station, then it is to be inferred that the deceased fell down when they were trying to catch hold of the train or when they were trying to get down from the train while the train was in motion which would come within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Act excluding the exceptions provided there under as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision 2nd cited supra under similar circumstances. Therefore, the dismissals recorded by the Tribunal are not tenable. Accordingly the point is answered. 13. Further, as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabhi and Others Vs. Union of India and another[3] the applicants are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of applications till the date of award and thereafter at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of realization of the said amount. 14. Further the applicants in O.A.A. No.119 of 2001 are appropriated Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and the applicants in O.A.A. No.120 of 2001 are apportioned Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively. 15. Hence for the foregoing reasons, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed setting aside the orders of dismissal made by the Tribunal awarding Rs.4,00,000/- in each appeal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the decrees and at 9% p.a. thereafter till the date of realization on this amounts and further the applicants in O.A.A. No.119/2001 are apportioned Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and applicants in O.A.A. No.120 of 2001 are apportioned Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date.24-02-2011. Dsh/Dvs [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B) [2] 2008 ACJ 1895 [3] (2009) 7 SCC 372