G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A No. 1030 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the appeal is allowed awarding compensation of
Provisions considered
- Railways Act, 1989 s. 123(c)(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. To what relief? On behalf of applicants, the first of them got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent- Railway, the then Station Superintendent, Moula Ali was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.C1 and C2. On…
Judgment
This appeal is directed against Order passed in O.A.A.No.122 of 2000 dated 26.4.2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the application.
For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they arrayed in the application. The claim of the applicants is that their son Akkenpali Venkateswarlu accompanied by his paternal grandmother while travelling by Train No.352 Repalle-Secunderabad passenger on
28.4.200 and when the train halted at Moula Ali Railway Station, got down and when he was boarding the train again, slipped and fell down accidentally from the train at the same place due to sudden jerk and movement and sustained serious and died on the spot. The Respondent-Railways filed written statement claiming that the act of the deceased would amount to self-inflicting injuries within the exceptions Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 with a plea to dismiss the application. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Akkenapalli Venkateswarlu?
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.352 Repalle-Secunderabad passenger travelling from Nadikude to Secunderabad on 28.4.2000?
Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Moula Ali Railway Station?
To what relief? On behalf of applicants, the first of them got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent- Railway, the then Station Superintendent, Moula Ali was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.C1 and C2. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal held the Issues 1 and 2 in favour of applicants and insofar as the third issue is concerned, it went against the applicants and in favour of the respondent-Railways on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the deceased and the injuries sustained by him should be deemed to be self-inflicted injuries, which falls within the ambit of exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. Therefore, it is to be seen whether is sustainable and the application is tenable.
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 provides, accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:
124-A Compensation on account of untoward incident: When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident
.
Operative part
The Supreme Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India[1] held that the provisions of Section 124A of Railways Act are in the nature of a no-fault liability in the case of railway accidents and a bona fide passenger traveling on a train would be entitled to compensation for such untoward incident irrespective of who was at fault therefor. Therefore, by virtue of the above judgment, the claim of the applicants is to be allowed in toto. The Tribunal below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants apportioning as Rs.1,75,000/- to the father and Rs.2,25,000/- to the mother. The awarded sum will carry interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of application till the date of the Award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the same. No order as to costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 13.4.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1030 of 2008
13.4.2011 [1] 2009 ACJ 2444
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the appeal is allowed awarding compensation of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railways Act, 1989 — s. 123(c)(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.