IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1190 of 2008. Date:21.09.2011 Between:- Dasari China Subbaiah and another ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 03.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.63 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Dasari Suneetha Rani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 16.10.2001 was dismissed. 2. The applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the parents of the deceased; that on 16.10.2001, the deceased was taken to Vijayawada railway station by one Matta Naga Laxmi Reddy with whom the deceased had intimacy and both of them boarded Godavari Express and sat in Coach No.S-8 as per the directions of TTE; that during the course of journey, the deceased had pressed the said Naga Laxmi Reddy to marry her at an early date and in that connection, a quarrel ensued between them, and while the train reached Rajahmundry railway bridge, when the deceased was going to toilet, the co-passenger Naga Laxmi Reddy caught hold of her and after a struggle, forced her out of the train with an intention to kill her and threw her out of the train, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the bridge, sustained injuries and died. 3. The respondent-Railways filed written statement and resisted the case stating that it is a clear case of murder and does not fall within the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Act and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Dasari Suneetha Rani? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7008 Godavari Express travelling from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam on 16.10.2001 along with Matta Naga Lakshmi Reddy? 3. Whether the deceased was a victim of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 of Railways Act and that she was pushed out from the train by Matta Naga Laxmi Reddy resulting her death at Rajahmundry new bridge? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that as one Naga Laxmi Reddy made a violent attack on the deceased and threw her from the compartment of the train after robbing her jewellery, the violent attack comes within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the applicants. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Railways contended that since the deceased and Naga Laxmi Reddy are lovers, some quarrel ensued between them and in that quarrel, Naga Laxmi Reddy pushed the deceased from the train with an intention to kill her; that therefore, the incident would not come under violent attack within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act and hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and prays to sustain the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. The applicants, who are the parents of the deceased, may not be in a position to know that the deceased died in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act, which reads thus:- “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, cloakroom 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.” It is not in dispute before this Court that one Naga Laxmi Reddy, with an intention to kill the deceased, pushed her out of the train as a result, she sustained injuries and died. Before pushing her out of the train, the said person robbed the gold ornaments of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and laid charge sheet against him. Though Naga Laxmi Reddy and the deceased were going to be married and a quarrel ensued while they were travelling in a train carrying passengers, it amounts to violent attack made by Naga Laxmi Reddy, and after committing robbery, Naga Laxmi Reddy pushed the deceased from the train. Therefore, the act of Naga Laxmi Reddy in pushing the deceased from out of the train amounts to ‘violent attack’ within the meaning of this Section. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants relied upon a decision reported in Union of India, Appellant v. Smt. Murti Devi, Respondent[1] wherein it is held at para No.7 as under: “An “untoward incident”, as already mentioned above, includes the “accidental falling” of any passenger from a train. It is thus clear that the deceased had died because of the injuries suffered due to his accidentally falling while travelling from New Delhi to Faridabad. The only ground on which the railway could avoid its liability was that the deceased had suffered injuries because of his own criminal act. It was for the railways to prove that the deceased had suffered injuries because of his own criminal act.” Similarly, he placed reliance upon a decision reported in Union of India, South Central Railways v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and others[2] wherein at page 582, it is held as under: “Where a bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident or sustains injuries, as the case may be, Railways to pay compensation without dispute, unless the death of the deceased, or the injuries sustained by the injured, would fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.” Therefore, from the above decisions, it is clear that if a person was thrown out from the compartment, it can be said to be a ‘violent attack’ within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act and so, the death of the deceased was in an untoward incident. It is not a case of the deceased intentionally falling from the train so as to commit suicide. Some other person pushed her. Because of the violent act, she fell down from the train, sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation to the applicants. Hence, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with simple interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of realization. They are entitled to equal share in the awarded amount. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.63 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 21st September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1190 of 2008. Date:21.09.2011 AMD [1] AIR 2004 DELHI 216 [2] 2004 ACJ 529