Miscellaneous Appeal No. 534 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2011

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.534 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.02.2009, in O.A.A.No.192 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of B.Krishna Murthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the order till realization.

The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 24.07.2003, the deceased while travelling by train No.E.163 from Vijayawada to Chirala, accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train at Appikatla Railway Station and sustained severe injuries. The train was stopped and deceased was brought in the same train to Bapatla Railway Station and handed over to the Government Railway Police, Bapatla, who shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Bapatla, and for better treatment, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur, where he succumbed to injuries. The deceased was having a ticket bearing No.30224674 to travel from Vijayawada to Chirala, which was seized by the Government Railway Police. Hence, the claim application.

The respondent/railways filed written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that on 24.07.2003, train No.E.163 passenger reached Appikatla at 10:03 hours and while the train started from Appikatla at 10:10 hours, one male person while getting into the moving train from off side, had fallen down and his leg was crushed; that the Guard of the train immediately rendered first aid the deceased and gave a memo the Station Superintendent/Appikatla, that the alleged incident was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased, which disentitles the applicants from claiming compensation, and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train?

4. To what relief?”

5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were got marked.

The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application holding that deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train; that he died in an untoward incident, the applicants, being the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways.

Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper?

For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Railways contended that due to negligence on the part of the deceased while trying to board the running train on the off side which resulted in his death, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to compensation for the lapses committed on the part of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The railway administration admitted that while the train started from Appikatla at 10:10 hours, one male person while getting into the moving train from off side, fallen down and his leg was crushed. The deceased was having a ticket bearing No.30224674 to travel from Vijayawada to Chirala. Once two requirements are satisfied, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as under Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Whether the fault is there or not, railway administration is liable to pay compensation. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.