Miscellaneous Appeal No. 767 of 2009 · High Court

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 20-04-2009 in O.A.A No.263 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of order, failing which, they are liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment.

Brief facts are that on 02-07-2005 the applicant and his friends purchased common journey ticket for travelling from Vijayawada to Eluru. When the train was reaching Powerpet Railway Station, due to rush and sudden jerk of the train, the applicant fallen down from the running train at Powerpet Railway Station. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital, where his left fore arm was amputated below elbow guillotine. He became blind in the right eye and fracture of medial malleolous left leg and also injury in the right arm.

The railways filed written statement denying averments in the application and stated that the injuries sustained are only due to own negligence of the applicant when he attempted to board the train, that the alleged incident if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the applicant and the applicant is not entitled for compensation for such self inflicted injuries.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial.

Whether the applicant, was a bona fide passenger of train No.1161 passenger travelling from Vijayawada to Eluru on 02-07- 2005?

2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-?

4. To what relief?

During enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. On behalf of Railways R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.

The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. 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. As far as bona fide passenger is concerned, the Railway Administration is not disputing about the same.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the applicant due to his own negligence fallen from the running train and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for compensation.

There cannot be any dispute that if a person accidentally falls from a running train, then he is entitled for compensation. In this case, no doubt the injured due to sudden jerks of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train and received injury to his left fore arm, which was subsequently amputated below elbow. He also received fracture to left leg and he became blind in the right eye. It is the case of the Railway Administration that the applicant due to his own negligence fell down from the running train. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in sustaining injuries, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the clauses as mentioned in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation considering the fact that the injured accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained injuries. The said order needs no interference by this Court.

Accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 18-08-2011 Hsd