The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Aggrieved b1' the order dated 18.06.2C 5 passed 1n O.A.A.No.89 of 2OO7 on the file of the Railway C t ims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunz .'), this civil miscellaneous zrppcal is filed by applicants.

2. Heard Mr. S.Cirandra Sekhar, learn<:ci counsel for appellants and Mr, Sanjeev Reddy Gillella, 1ee t red Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondents

3. Applicants zrre hcirs of deceased (one .l .yamma), the deceased with her daughter Dhanalaxmi (appli,;.nt No.5) was travelling from Chandrapur to Kazipet with a valid journey ticket bearing No. 196725i3 by train No.7092, Pet.ra Express. It is the case of applicants that deceased had an tccidental fall from train at Hasanparthi Road station due tr> r.iolent jerks, sustained grievous injuries, while being taken to Mahatma Gandhi Memorial (MGM) hospital, Warangai by railway 2 ]AK,J C.M.A.No.592 of 2015 officials, died on the way. Entire controversy revolves around issue whether Railways are liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased

4. It is the case of Railways, that death was not due to accidental fall leading to an untoward incident within the meaning of 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989, but, was a deliberate act of jumping from the train which amounts to self inflicted injuries and by virtue of proviso to Section 124 of Railway Act, Railways are exonerated from the liability to pay compensation

5. The Railway Tribunal considering the evidence of witnesses AWl for applicants, RWl and RW2 for respondents and the documents marked as Exs.Al to A9 for applicants and Exs.Rl to R4 for respondents, concluded that death was self inflicted, that deceased deliberately jumped frorn running train at Hasanparthi Road station as she boarded a wrong train. Instead of boarding the passenger train for which she purchased the ticket, she boarded Patna Express with the 4 3 ,AK,J C t4 \ No.692 of 2015 permission of TTE. Flence, the voluntarJz and delil erate act of jumping from the moving train calnot be < i lied as an accidental fall, and cannot be termed as ar unto\\ rrd incident but a self inflicted ir.rjury and the Tribunal in O. ,.A.No.89 of 2OO7 on 18.06.2015, rightly held that appliczL rts are not entitled for compensation and dismissed the app cation. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in this CMA.

6. Learned counsel for applicants submitted tL at cleceased and her daugl-rter Dhanalaxmi on 24.12.2005 w: -e travelling from Chandrapur to Kazipet in train No.7092, Pe .1 -ra Express, with train ticket bearing No. 19672513, deceas :d had an accidental fall from t he train and sustained grie,r , r-Ls injuries, died while shifting to MGM hospital, Warangal. t is further submitted that the Tribunal lell into error in corr luding that deceased jumped from train. That, no evidence was adduced on behalf of Railu'ay administration to bring home ttt lact that it was a self inflicted injury and said act is nc t under the exemption of Section 124 of Railway Act. it is als r submitted that as Railways have not adduced any evidence t rat it was a I i i ! l I i ; l I I I d n I 4 JAK,J C.M.A.No.692 of 2015 self inflicted injury, the said act would fall under Section i23 of Railway Act, al untoward incident and the claim cannot be said to be an invalid claim. It is submitted that though RW 1 and RW2 have been examined (in evidence), they did not speak as to the deliberate jumping while the trarn was moving. It is contended that though AW1, the daughter of deceased stated in her evidence, that her mother out of anxiety, tried to get down from the train, the same is pictured as the deceased tried to jump from the moving train at Hasanparthi Road station. 7 . l,earned counsel has invited the attentiori of this Court to a judgment of Union oJ India a. Rina Deui,, to Paragraph Nos.16.1 to 16.6 of the said judgment, and contended that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an hntoward incident' entitling a wictim to the compensation and the same would not fall under proviso to Section 124-A, (plea of self inflicted injury). Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court of a learned Single Judge in C.M.A.No.965 of 2018, to buttress the '20t8 acJ tq4 t ..,::" 5 JAK,J ,: vl.A.No.692 of 2015 i contention that Section 123 of Railway Act is ap rlicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and -..at denia-1 of compensation by the Tribunal cannot be terme < as an act of deceased falling under the purview of Section I 1l --A proviso as held.

8. Learned counsel submitted that deceasec rvas bonafide passenger, boarded the train with the permi;sion of TTE (Travelling Ticket Examiner) and it is onl1 after taking permission from TTE, she boarded Patna Expres ;. It is not in dispute that deceased was illiterate (coolie). k'i rned counsel contended that applicants are eligible for compenr etion

9. Learned Standing Counsel for Railways r; rbmitted that evidence of AW 1 , daughter of deceased, establish: ; the fact that deceased tried to jump from mnning train at Ha:;r nparthi Road station after realizing that she has boarded the wrong train. That such an act of negligence and carelessne;s cannot be attributed as untoward incident but defrnitely 1z lls under the ambit of Section 124-A of Railway Act. It is furr.l er submitted 6 JAK,J C.M.A.No.592 of 2015 that injuries sustained by deceased are €u1 act of self inflicted injury and it is not a case where deceased has fallen from train because of jerks, that the same is evident from record (of AWI)' That it is not disputed that deceased and her daughter were having a valid ticket.

10. Learned counsel for Railways placed on record a copy of judgment of Ashok through l*gat Represento:tiues and others o. union of Indio, through its General Manager2 '

11. It is submitted that the Tribunal considered the evidence on recorcl, exhibits marked and decisions of the Hontrle Apex Court. It is further submitted that the Tribunal's order is neither perverse nor illegal to be interfered with' it is also submitted that there are no merits in the contentions raised by learned counsel for applicants and CMA is liable to be dismissed.

12. It is submitted that on a perusal of Sections L23 and I24 of Railway Act, coupled with the fact that the deceased tried to '? 2024 scc onLine Bom 1846 I i t t I i a I 7 JAK,J ( M.A.No.692 of 2015 deboard from a moving train causing a self inll < ted injury and the death not being an untoward incident cal,.'ir ot be brought under the ambit of Section 123 of Railway Act.

13. Heard iearned counsels, perused tl-r: record and considered the submissions 14 . F acts are not in dispute. On 24 .12 . ,t)Os , mother (deceased) along rvith her daughter boarded th r train with a valid journey ticket and u,as travelling from ( trandrapur to Kazipet. Both mother and daughter boarded 'zrtna Express (Train No.7092) with the permission of TTE. It s amply clear that both passengers were not aware of the trz in rv-hich they har.e boarded, it is only after enquiring with TTJI they boarded the train. From the order of Tribunal, it evident 1,hat after the tu,o passengers carne to know that the train wct ld not stop at their destination of Kazipet, deceased became a.r; ious and tried to deboard the train. These facts are elicited in t ee evidence of AW1. AWl also denied that deceased jumped fr: n the train. It is not in dispute that both AWl and her r':r )rher tried to JAK,J C.M.A.No.692 of 2015 deboard the train, when they teafized that train would not stop at their destination.

15. The Tribunal relied upon testimony of RW 1 i'e' ' the Deputy Station Superintendent' The manner of occurrence of events was considered on the basis of testimony of RW 1 It defres the logic of this Court as to how a person sitting in a station room can depose as to the occurrence of events which took place beyond his visible range' The Deputy Station Superintendent is supposed to administer from his railway platform room and the accident occurred at a distance from the said railway station. In such a situation' it becomes highly improbable for this Court to give a nod to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of RW 1 . Such approved hnding(s) are fact(s) which are not witnessed by RW1' It is a control message which was received ald on the basis of that control message ' the testimony of Deputy Station Superintendent (RWl) cannot be sustained.Itwouldbeaweakpieceofevidencetobe considered, the Tribunal erred' Tl l i I I I I l i I I i! z n! I I I 9 JAK,J ( . 4 A.No.692 of 2015

16. It is recorded in the order of Tribur,i 1 that both passengers have taken permission of TTE. T'I'II should have informecl them that Patna Express would not be r; opping at the destination r,r,here the passengers were to get do", n. Though, it cannot be considered a lapse on the part of TTE, t cal be held that the passengers were not aware that the trz in would not stop at the destination where they wanted to ge - dou,n. [t rvas onlv on the information of co-passengers that de: rased mother ald daughter came to know that they boarded tLr wrong train. It is at this juncture, the judgment of Ashoft tl, rough Legal Representatiues and others u. Unioft oJ Ind.io,., through its General Manager (2 supra), comes to the -, scue of the applicants. The relevant portion of the said juC lment, 15 AS follou.s "18. The evidence adduced by the Rarlways sufhcient to accept its contention that the injured j from the train. The injured has stated that, due to i mistake, he boarded the wrong train with a valid t:r my view, the act of deboarding the train in such a si could not be sard to be a criminal act, and thr: sustained in such an act could not be said to br inflicted injury. At the most, such an act could be as a rash and negligent act. The option of pultrng ttLr to stop the train was available to the injured. The i: instead of pulling the chain, made an attempt to I s not (et. [n ration injury r self- jured, 'board 10 JAK,J C.M.A.No.692 of 2015 the train at the platform. The Guard of the train has categorically stated that, at the time of the incident, the train was moving at a slow speed. It is necessary to state that t1 e passenger in the factual situation of this case, after rea)izing his mistake, is bound to suffer an>ilous rnoments The boarding of the wrong train arld that too proceeding m the opposite direction is bound to make the sard passenger to suffer a sudden shock. The passenger in such a siluation, if the train is moving at a slow speed, will try to deboatd the said train at the platform. The passenger is expected to pull the chain to stop the train. Farlure to pull thi chain to stop the train and arr attempt to deboard the train at the platform could not be sard to be a criminal act' It needs to be stated that in such a factual scenario, ttte passenger, undergoing an anxious moment, can comrnit a mistal<e. Such a mistake could be said to be a mere error of judgment. Similarly, the injury sustained in such an act touid not be said to be a self-inflicted injury' The liability is based on 'no fault theory' The rash ald negligent act cannot be equated with a cnminal act or ar act resulting into a self-i.nflicted injury. In my view, therefore, learned Member of the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim- Learned Member has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The injury sustained by the injured has been proved to be in an untoward incident, as understood by Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. 17 . The facts which are narrated above are similar to the case which fell for consideration before the Bombay High Court' As stated supra, the facts are not in dispute ald in the considered view of this Court, the said judgment has taken a view which this Court is not inclined to differ from.

18. It union oJ India a- Rina. Devi (l supra), it is held at Paragraph No.16.6 that the death or injury in the course of 7 l i l I i I t I I ; i I i i 1 I I i I i : : : . i t i I t I I I 11 JAK,J C. 4 A.No.692 of 2015 boarding or deboarding a train wili be al hntcvard incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and w.ould -rot fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea ol rregligence of the victim as a contributing factor. In the preserl rase, it is not disputed that deceased was a bonafide passenger', Boarding the wrong train has set in anxious movements in tl e passengers who boarded the train. The obvious reaction rv: -rid be to get dorvn from the train. Usually, passengers try to ge t down at the intended station, but sometimes it so happens tr rt they try to deboard q,hen the train has not attained certain s,1 eed. Such an act cannot fall under ambit of self inflicted injun, as the act of passengers in the present case to get down from r u,rong train duc to anxious movements as held cannot be ter ned as a self inflicted injury. As they have boarded train only aJ -er taking the permission of TTE, whose duty was also to infrlm that train would not halt at the station where they wor; d get dou.n. Because of the anxious movements they comrt tted mistake and such a mistake has rightly been held to b : an error of judgment. The applicants are eligible for comp: rsation. This 12 JAK,J C.M.A.No.692 of 2015 Court is not inclined to uphold the view of Tribunal. For reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,0O,OO0/- for the death of deceased, the amount of compensation Rs.8,00,000/ shall be paid to the applicants proportionately. It is observed from the array of parties that one Maisa Sujatha arrayed as applicant No.4 has died, no application is filed to bring the LR's on record. It is made clear that if Maisa Sujatha has any lega1 heirs, the share of Maisa Sujatha shall be handed over to the legal heirs proportionately. If in case, the appellant/applicant Maisa Sujatha does not have any legal heirs, the proportionate share of Maisa Sujatha shali be proportionately distributed arnong the other applicants/ appellants.

19. This Court appreciates learned counsel for respondent- Railways in enlightening this Court with the judgment of Bombay High Court.

20. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Misceilaneous Appeal is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. No costs. f, i I t i i ; f I i I I { 5 E I t I 13 JAK,J {l 1.A.No.692 of 2015

21. Amounts shall be paid to the applicants wi, Lin a period of three (03) months lrom the date of receipt of r copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications pending, if arL', shall stand closed To, S t /- R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR |9 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad' 2. One CC to SRI S CHANDRASEKHAR Advocate IOPU ]l 3 One CC to SRI SANJEE-V GILLELLA (C-ENTRAL GO\/ 1RNMENT coUNSELr Hiqh cout t"tiil" siiiii oi Gang'na H\ I I [oPUc]

4. Two CD Copies !t I ! -a ..:\ '' .',.: ,. '.. -) 1I t I i i.^ i..':i_ 3 1 i.;; ffifi I .i' HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.692 of 2015 ALLOWING THE APPEAL I Ei : i I