Andhra HC (PreTelangana) The General Manager, South Central ... vs K. Narayana Rao on 28 April, 2004 Equivalent citations: I(2005)ACC239, 2005ACJ1249, AIR2004AP442, 2004(4)ALT464, AIR 2004 ANDHRA PRADESH 442, (2004) 4 ANDHLD 351, (2004) 21 INDLD 70, (2004) 4 ANDH LT 464, (2005) 2 TAC 410, (2005) 1 ACC 239, (2005) 2 ACJ 1249 JUDGMENT S.R.K. Prasad, J. 1. This L.P.A is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.1214 of 1999 dismissing the appeal and confirming the awarding of compensation in O.A.A.No.121 of 1998 dated 22.1.1999 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. 2. The appellant is the Railways whereas the claimant is the respondent herein. They will be arrayed as in the claim petition. The claimants being the husband and daughter of the deceased Venkatalakshmi have claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ alleging that his wife fell down from the train near Gooty Railway Station while travelling in the second class railway compartment along with them from Madras to Guntakal, crushed in between the train and the platform resulting in her instantaneous death. The claimants have produced the first information report, inquest report, the original copy of the ticket coupon, the original copy of the Excess Fare Ticket of the deceased and also the salary certificate of the deceased, who was employed as a nursing tutor. Subsequently her daughter has given up her claim. The same is resisted by the railways on the ground that the death occurred on account of the negligence and careless act of the deceased who attempted to step down from the moving train before taking a stop on the platform at Gooty station and as such no compensation was payable in view of proviso (b) to Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. It was, however, admitted in the counter that II Class Ticket No.80584033 was issued to the deceased, her husband and daughter at Chennai on 11.9.1997. On a consideration of the entire material on record, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/ as compensation following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in G.M., K.S.R.T. Corpn., v. Susamma Thomas1. The Tribunal directed the Railways to pay Rs.50,000/ to the husband by cheque and the remaining amount was ordered to be deposited in nationalized bank as fixed deposit for a period of five years permitting the claimants to draw the interest accrued thereon. Aggrieved by the same, the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, has preferred C.M.A.No.1214 of 1999. The learned single Judge of this Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal by judgment dated 18.8.1999. Thereupon, the railways have preferred this L.P.A. 3. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there was no oral or documentary evidence to establish that the first claimant was the husband and dependant of the deceased Venkatalakshmi and the 2nd claimant was their daughter. It is further contended that the original II Class ticket No.80584033 is not produced and only xerox copy is produced. He further contends that the procedure laid down under Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was not followed in passing the orders in O.A.A.No.121 of 1998 and it is only based on inadmissible evidence, namely, First Information Report dated 11.9.1997 and the inquest report dated 11.9.1997. It is further contended that the pleadings are discrepant as it is mentioned in the Original Application that the deceased slipped out of the moving train in Gooty Railay Station and another version in the Application was that because of the jerks resulting after the breaks applied to the train, the deceased slipped out of the doorway that was open resulting in the death of the deceased. It is also further contended that Section 124A of the Railways Act is not attracted in the incident as she has completed the journey in the train and she is not a passenger in the train. It is not a case of falling under the definition of untoward incident within the meaning of Sections 123 and 124 of the Railways Act. Lastly, it is contended that it is a selfinflicted injury within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act as the deceased has attempted to alight from the moving train even before it has come to a halt on platform No.2 at Gooty Railway Station. Hence, he has sought for setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, who confirmed the awarding of compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that he is entitled to compensation as dependent of the deceased and she was a bona fide passenger, as the matter will fall under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 5. Before adverting to the said contentions of both sides, it is necessary to have a glance at the relevant provisions of Railways Act, 1989. Section 123(c) reads