The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad v. Mohd. Khaleel

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the deceased was holding a valid second class monthly season ticket to travel by the train in between the said two stations, he fell down from the running train because of his own fault which would attract the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is not valid and it is liable to be dismissed.

9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether the act of the deceased would come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not?

10. Point Nos.1 and 2: There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1, whereas, the dispute is whether the act of the deceased would fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Act?

11. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides : “When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident : Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to – (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him ; (b) self-inflicted injury ; (c) his own criminal act ; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.” In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS[1], it was held as follows : “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number railway passengers getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains since everybody can not afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.

16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion the present case is clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso.

17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.”

12. So, by virtue of the decision cited, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and still he is to be treated as bona fide passenger of the train by which the deceased traveled or intended to travel. Further as the decision cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed. Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case without costs. G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J ___________________________ Dated: 01-03-2011. Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895