The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, S.C. Railways, Secunderabad v. Addepalli Naga Venkata Subhashini.

3. The facts of the case are as follows : On 21-02-2000 the applicant who was taking training in Diploma in Special Education in Thakur Hari Prasad Institute at Rajahmundry along with her friend Srinivasu came to Tanuku railway station and purchased two tickets for Circar Express at about 06-30 a.m. to travel from Tanuku to Rajahmundry and boarded in a general compartment at 07-00 or 07-15 p.m. As there was heavy rush in the compartment the applicant stood besides a door and when the train leaving Nidadavolu railway station at about 08-00 a.m. accidentally she slipped and fell down from the moving train near cabin, as a result of which her left foot was amputated. Immediately after the incident, her friend Srinivasu jumped from the train and had taken her to the Government Hospital, Nidadavolu, and from there she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tanuku, and thereafter she was referred to the Government Hospital, Kakinada, for better treatment and she was given treatment at Sri Chaitanya Orthopedic Hospital, Tanuku. During the incident the applicant lost her journey ticket. She was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the application.

4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas taken by the applicant and further contending that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger of the train and she fell down from the moving train due to her own negligent act and as such it would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries by her negligence and carelessness which does not attract Section 123-C of the Railways Act, 1989.

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.7043 Circar Express traveling from Tanuku to Rajahmundry on 21-02-2000 as alleged? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Nidadavolu East Cabin? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as prayed sustained the injuries? 4) To what Relief?

6. On behalf of the applicant, she got herself examined as AW.1 and also got examined one S. Srinivas as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 which are Medical Certificate, copy of memo of GRP, letter dated 21-02-2000 and copy of statement recorded by the police. On behalf of the respondent, V.S.R.K. Patnaik, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked Guard’s Rough Journal as Ex.R-1.

7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that no F.I.R. was registered and no information was given to the concerned Railway police and the railway police record does not speak about the incident and only private medical certificate was marked as exhibit to establish the injuries said to be received by the applicant and the claim of the applicant is not proved but the Tribunal on misconception of the facts and issues allowed the application.

8. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there is clear documentary evidence to the effect that concerned hospital authority issued hospital intimation and her statement was recorded by the concerned police and according to her, she lost her ticket in the process of accident and by virtue of sections 54 and 55 of the Railway Act, 1989, read with section 114 of the Evidence Act, it is to be presumed that she boarded the train having purchased valid ticket and hence her claim is to be accepted. It is also his contention that the matter is to be disposed of summarily and the medical record was not disputed at the outset by the respondent- authorities and hence, it cannot be disputed later.

9. Further cross objections are filed for awarding interest from the date of application on the amount that may be awarded have been withdrawn as not pressed by learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Now it is to be seen as to : 1) Whether the applicant placed sufficient evidence to the effect that she traveled by the train? 2) If so, whether the rest has proved that she was not a bona fide passenger of the train? 3). Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and its order is sustainable or not?

11. Points: The applicant as AW.1 deposed in accordance with her claim getting marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 which happened to be the Medical Certificate, copy of memo of GRP, letter dated 21-02-2000 and copy of the statement recorded by the police. It is pertinent to note here that the hospital authorities sent intimation to the concerned about the injuries sustained by her and the police recorded her statement.

12. Srinivasu, AW.2, who is accompanying the applicant at the time of accident while traveling from Tanuku to Rajahmundry by 7043 Circar Express, stated that the applicant has slipped and fallen down from the train after starting at Nidadavolu railway station and his statement corroborated with the version of AW.1.

13. Further the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaras Vijaya Kumar and others[1] it was observed as follows : “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number railway passengers getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well-known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by the railway trains since everybody can not afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.

16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion the present case is clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso.

17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.”

14. It is significant to note here that the Supreme Court considered the question of such victims catching hold of a running train, slipping and falling down and receiving injuries and also question of such victims trying to get down from a moving train and slipping, falling down and receiving injuries and ultimately gave verdict that those acts would not come within the purview of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act whereas in spite of involving in such acts they are to be termed as bona fide passengers of the train. The observation of the Supreme Court is quite applicable here and hence the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J ___________________________ Dated:10-02-2011. Dvs/Dsh. [1] 2008 ACJ 1895