V. Amba Prasad v. The Union of India

Order

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989, is directed against the Judgment dated 20-11-2002 made in O.A.A. No.173 of 1998, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim of the applicant was dismissed on the ground that he was not having a valid ticket to travel in the express train. Challenging the same, the present Appeal filed by claimant/injured.

2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Appeal may be stated as follows : On 28-06-1998 the applicant purchased a ticket for boarding train No.7610, Mahaboobnagar to Secunderabad express, and boarded train at Umdanagar railway station in general compartment and that he was standing near the door of the compartment, because of the reason that the compartment was overcrowded with passengers, and the corridor was blocked with vegetable baskets and when the train reached near LC Gate No.13 at Km 25/5-6, he slipped and fell down on the track due to jerk of the train and the said train ran over his right leg and went away without stopping, then he was shifted on to the platform, and he purchased another ticket from Umdanagar to Kacheguda as he lost the earlier ticket the accident, hence, the claim for compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-.

4. The Respondent filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the application and denied the issuance of ticket from Umdanagar to Kacheguda for train No.7610, Mahaboobnagar to Secunderabad, on 28-06-1998 and on coming to know about the alleged accident by the Deputy Station Superintendent, the accident was informed to the railway police and the statement of the applicant is false and baseless.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the trial Court :

1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.7610 Express, traveling from Umdanagar to Kacheguda on 28-06-1998?

2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of accidental fall from the trail at LC Gate No.13 at KM25/5-6 as alleged?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.2,40,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged incident?

4. To what relief?

6. Considering the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant was not having a valid ticket to travel in the express train and hence, dismissed the claim. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed.

7. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the applicant is a bona fide passenger having a valid ticket to travel in the express train and whether he is entitled for any compensation?

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the appellant was not having a valid ticket to travel in the express train, he has purchased a ticket to travel in a passenger train and he was prepared to pay the difference amount for traveling in the express train to the TTE, and so, he can be said to be a bona fide passenger and therefore he prays to set aside the impugned judgment.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of the applicant as he was standing near the door of the compartment and accident was not an outcome of ‘untoward incident’ and that he was not having a valid ticket to travel in the express train as required under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 1989, and the trial Court after elaborate evidence on record rightly dismissed the claim and there was no record to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was traveling in Mahaboobnagar to Secunderabad in express train having boarded at Umdanagar railway station in the general compartment. It is in the evidence that he was standing at the door of the compartment at the time of the accident. According to the applicant, due to jerk of the railway compartment, suddenly fell down, and the wheels of the train ran over on his right leg. It is not in dispute, that the right leg below knee of the applicant was amputated.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that when a person standing at the door of the compartment fell from the train and met with accident, it can be said that accident occurred due to his negligence and for that, he placed a strong reliance on the full bench decision of this Court reported in a case between Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad vs. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and others[1], wherein it is held that : “on the analysis above we conclude that the expression “untoward incident” in Section 124-A of the Act, which has been defined inter alia, to mean accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers (in sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act) does not comprehend injury or death occasioned negligence, carelessness, wrongful act or prohibited conduct, disregard of the requisite standard of care obligated by a person traveling on a train or any such conduct of a passenger which might reasonably be expected to result in his injury or death, as a resultant injury death would, circumstances, be the consequence of a self-inflicted injury”. Therefore, in view of the above decision, it is clear that if any accident occurred due to negligence or carelessness or wrongful act of the applicant, it may not be coming within the meaning of ’untoward accident.’

12. The reason given by the applicant is that as the corridor of the compartment was blocked with vegetable baskets and compartment was overcrowded with passengers, he was forced to stand at the door of the compartment. Since it is a general compartment, the same has to be regulated by the concerned officials and appropriate steps have to be taken by railways, in not allowing any passenger to board the train in that compartment, as it was overcrowded. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was negligence or carelessness on the part of the applicant in traveling in the express train. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was negligence or wrongful act on the part of the applicant, traveling in the compartment by standing at the door. He had no other go except to stand at the door of the compartment. In view of the fact that the general compartment was overcrowded, because of a jolt or jerk of the train, the petitioner fell down from the train and his right leg was ran over by the wheels of the train and as a result his right leg below knee was amputated. Therefore, it can be held that the applicant sustained injuries because of the untoward incident.

13. Now, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that the applicant was having a ticket to travel in the passenger train but not in express train and therefore, he was not having a valid ticket as required under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 124-A explanation defines the ‘passenger’ includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling in a train carrying passengers of any date or valid platform ticket. On this aspect the learned counsel for the Respondent placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court reported in a case between K. Vidya Kumari and others Vs. Union of India, South Central Railway[2], wherein it is held that : “As can be seen from the aforesaid provisions, a passenger who purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers, and even a person who possesses a valid platform ticket is covered by this definition, and when becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. There is no specific mention in this section that a passenger should possess a ticket only in respect of the train from which he had an accidental fall. Since a person who possesses a platform ticket is also entitled for compensation, possession of a valid ticket for a particular train, becomes immaterial”.

14. The learned counsel for the Respondent also relied upon another decision reported in a case between Parisa Anjali and others Vs. Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad[3], wherein it is held that : “Even if there is any possibility for treating the ticket held by the deceased, as not valid one, he does not cease to be a passenger, in the context of the extension of benefits, under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act. What becomes material, in this regard, is the intention of the person, who was traveling in the train. It is only when the person boards train with a clear intention to travel in it, without purchasing a ticket, that he can be treated as not a passenger. Take for instance a situation, where a person finds that the train in which he has to travel, is about to start, by the time he reached the station, and he does not have the time to purchase the ticket. Though he does not hold the ticket, he may still board the train with an intention to pay the fare to the TTE. Such a person can still be treated as bona fide passenger, both, when he boarded the train without ticket and after he pays the fare to the TTE”. From the above decisions, it is clear that the applicant was having a passenger ticket but he boarded the express train. In case, the Traveling Ticket Examiner found that he was not having a valid ticket, he could also collect the difference of fare. It is not the case of the respondent that with a mala-fide intention to cause wrongful loss to the Railways, the applicant was traveling in the express train, by purchasing a ticket for passenger train. Therefore, in view of the decision cited 3rd supra, this Court has no option but to hold that the applicant was bonafidely traveling in an express train with a passenger ticket, with an intention to pay the difference of fare and though the passenger ticket is not valid for traveling in the express train but at the same time, the difference of traveling fees if any can be collected by the Railways. Following the said judgment, it cannot be said that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger, and it can be said that the applicant is a bona fide passenger traveling in the express train. Hence, the Railways are liable to pay the compensation as per the schedule of the Railways Accident Claims Rules, 1990. For amputation below knee up to 3 and half inches but not existing 5 inches, the compensation payable is Rs.1,00,000/-

15. With regard to payment of the interest, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon a decision reported in a case between Erla Susheela and others Vs. Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad[4], wherein it is held that : “The Railways cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the interest all through. Hence, it is directed that Rs.4,00,0000/- compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from January, 2004”. But, in this case, it cannot be said that, the fault is with the applicant for pendency of the Appeal before this Court. So, whatever may be the reason, the Appeal has been pending for the last 7 years. Hence, the interest is ordered at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 9% p.a. till realization. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with costs. The Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the applicant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of award and @ 9% p.a. thereafter till realization. K.C.BHANU, J. __________________ March, 11, 2010. DSH [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100. [2] 2004 ACJ 1420, [3] 2010 (1) ALT 709. [4] 2010(1) ALT 428.