Miscellaneous Appeal No. 762 of 2008 · High Court

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-railways challenging the order dated 22.04.2008 in O.A.A. No.276 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent-claimant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him on 02.02.2002 in an untoward incident was allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-.

The claimant’s version is that on 02.02.2002, while he was travelling from Bapatla to Hyderabad along with his mother with ticket Nos. 13862 and 13863, he accidentally slipped and fell down from train No.352 at Tenali Railway Station and sustained severe injuries and that his right leg was amputated.

The appellant-railways before the Tribunal denied the averments made in the application and submitted that the claimant and his mother

have themselves confirmed in the statements enclosed with the application that the claimant while trying to catch a running train, fell down and sustained injuries, which amounts to self inflicted injuries. The appellant-railways, therefore, stated that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the application.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.352 passenger travelling from Bapatla Hyderabad on 02.02.2002? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Tenali Railway Station? 3) Whether the injury sustained by the applicant amounts to self inflicted injuries which is one of the exception under Section 124-A of Railways Act and Respondent Railway is not liable to pay compensation? 4) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries? 5) To what relief?

4. The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the claimant as AW1 and Exs A1 to A6 were marked on his behalf. The Railways examined Deputy Station Superintendent of Tenali Railway Station as RW1, Guard of train No.352 as RW2, Civil Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Tenali as RW3 and got marked Exs. R1 to R3. The Court examined the Civil Surgeon (Specialist) of District Hospital, Tenali as CW1 and marked Ex.C1, Case Record.

Basing on the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is a bona fide passenger travelling with valid ticket and as a result of untoward incident, he sustained injuries and accordingly granted compensation. Aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed by the Railways.

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

6. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, a person sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants’ falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124A of the Act.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-railways contended that as the untoward incident has happened due to the negligence of the claimant himself, the railway administration is not liable to pay the compensation.

When the injured has fallen from the running train, he was immediately taken to Tenali Hospital, where he informed to doctors that he accidentally fell down from the train due to sudden jerk of the train. The evidence of RW3 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon coupled with Ex.C1 would clearly go to show that the injured right leg was amputated. Ex.A6 is the Medical Report. The evidence of AW1 injured would clearly go to show that while he was about to board the train, there was a sudden jerk, as a result, he fell down in between the platform and compartment, due to which, the wheels of the train ran over on his right leg. In the facts of the case, it is an untoward incident wherein claimant has sustained injuries. The case of the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the claimant in attempting to board a running train. That cannot be a ground to deny the compensation to the injured for the reason that negligence is not one of the defences available to the railway administration by virtue of proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. It is not a case of self inflicting injuries or attempting to commit suicide. Therefore, the two requirements have been satisfied by the claimant and the trial Court after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation in terms of the schedule. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Dt. 30.03.2011 K.C.BHANU,J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 762 of 2008 Dt. 30.03.2011