S. Ramesh v. The Union of India

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No: 1044 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, “the RCT Act”), against order dated 17-08- 2006 passed in O.A.A No.132 of 2001 under Section 16 of the RCT Act, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- injuries sustained by appellant/applicant in train accident, on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad, by which the claim was dismissed.

The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the application.

It is the claim of the applicant that on 10-01-2001, he (the applicant) tried to aboard the Train No.536 while it was moving at Jadcherla railway station, having a season ticket to go to Kacheguda and fell down and received injuries and he was a bona fide passenger of the train and he is entitled to the compensation claimed.

On behalf of the railways, a written statement was filed totally denying the claim of the applicant and further claiming the incident occurred only because of his own negligence with a plea to dismiss the application.

The applicant got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1. On behalf of the respondent, the guard of the train was examined as R.W.1 and Rough Journal prepared by him was marked as Ex.R-1.

The Tribunal while holding that he tried to catch hold of a running train and fell down and received injuries, dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that the incident occurred only because of his own negligence and carelessness which would fall within the purview of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the applicant.

Therefore, it is only to be considered whether the said Act of the applicant would come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and whether he is entitled to the compensation claimed and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and its order is sustainable or not.

The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHERS[1], wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that if a passenger while trying to board a train falls down and receives injuries, still he falls within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and is entitled for compensation.

Hence, by virtue of the Apex Court’s judgment, the act of the applicant in trying to catch hold of the running train and falling down and receiving injuries would fall within the ambit of Section 123-C of the Railways Act with regard to the question of untoward incident and also within the ambit of the main limb of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and therefore, he is to be termed as a bona fide passenger of the train.

Then, it is to be examined as to the nature of the injuries received by him in the accident for the purpose of awarding necessary compensation.

As per Ex.A-5-Certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Mahabubnagar, the applicant sustained severe injuries, i.e., his left hand was cut and so on. Though this document is only a self-serving document which cannot be taken into consideration to prove the injuries, Ex.A-6-referral card, Ex.A-7-discharge summary issued by Anurag Orthopaedic and Multispeciality Hospital, Dilsukhnagar prove that his left leg below his knee was cut and his left hand was also cut and he took necessary treatment. There is no dispute that the applicant sustained those injuries because of the impact of falling down from the train. Further, by virtue of the schedule Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule 1990, for loss of hand and foot Rs.4,00,000/- is to be awarded. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the compensation.

The Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly. It appears that at that time the Supreme Court Judgment was not in force. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.