C.M.A No. 868 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in OAA No.158 of 2005,

whereunder and whereby the application filed by the appellant herein claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed.

The brief facts that may be necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows: On 01.04.2005, the appellant along with his one and half years old nephew travelled in passenger Train bearing No. 474 from Chebrolu to Kavali. When the train reached Tenali Station, the appellant got down with the child to fetch drinking water and after drinking water, they boarded the train immediately, but the train started with a jerk, due to which, he and the child accidentally fell down and both of them sustained injuries. Hence, the appellant filed the above application.

The respondent-South Central Railway represented by its General Manager resisted the claim of the appellant by filing written statement contending that the train was stopped for two minutes at Tenali and that when it started, the applicant with the child tried to board the train and fell down due to his own negligence. It was also stated that the Guard of the train stopped the train, went to the spot and found that the appellant and the child were pulled by some passengers and there were no visible injuries present either on the appellant or on the child.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injury as a result of an un-toward incident of fall from train? 3) Whether the applicant was entitled to compensation as prayed for? 4) To what relief?

On behalf of the appellant, he himself was examined as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent- railways, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, through the impugned order dismissed the application holding that though the appellant was a bona fide passenger, fell down from the train and suffered injuries, he is not entitled to compensation as the injuries were self-inflicted. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was a bona fide passenger having purchased a valid ticket; that when he was about to board the train, he fell down accidentally and sustained crush injury to his right leg and later it was amputated 5 inches below the knee, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the appellant himself in boarding the train, and such is the case, the Tribunal rightly disallowed his claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

Two requirements are to be satisfied for claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, firstly; there must be an untoward incident and in that untoward incident the person must be died or sustained injuries and secondly; the appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train with a valid ticket. The Railway Administration is not disputing about the taking place of untoward incident, wherein the appellant sustained crush injury to his right leg and thereafter, it was amputated five inches below the knee. The defence of negligence on the part of the appellant is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in Section 124-A of the Act. However, the case of the appellant does not fall under any of the clauses in the said proviso.

When the appellant had fallen from the train accidentally, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the injuries sustained by the appellant would come under the category of self-infliction. So, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in a right perspective and came to the conclusion that the injuries are self-inflicted. The case falls under item 20 of the Schedule, where for the amputation below knee with stump exceeding 5 inches, the compensation payable is Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed directing the Railway Administration to pay compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Date: 24.08.2011 K.C. BHANU, J