The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Railways Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation for a passenger's death after falling while attempting to board a moving train. The Court held the act did not fall within Section 124-A exceptions.
No order as to costs; appeal dismissed confirming the Tribunal's order of 14-02-2006.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
C.M.A.No.1017 OF 2006
Date:10-03-2011
Between:-
Union of India, rep.by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
.. Appellant/Respondent
And
Nethala Ramakrishna and another
.. Respondents/Applicants
JUDGMENT:-
The appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 14-02-2006 passed in O.A.A.No.335 of 2002 under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- following death of one Nethala Sri Rama Satya Srinivas on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the claim.
2. The appellants are the applicants and respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the application.
3. The claim of the applicants is as follows:
They happened to be the parents of the deceased person. On 27-09-2002, the deceased travelled by train No.7244 Circar Express from Kakinada to go to Chennai for attending an interview and at Kakinada, he fell down and received injuries and died on the spot. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence, the application.
4. The respondent filed written statement to the effect that the deceased tried to board the train which was in motion and hence, he fell down and received injuries and died and therefore, it was an act done by his negligence and carelessness and without proper foresight of the consequences which therefore should be deemed to be causing of self inflicting injuries which deny the applicants to make the claim.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?
2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train?
4. To what relief?
6. For the applicants, the first of them was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Further, for the respondent, the guard of the train was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R-1 was marked.
7. On the basis of the material available, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants and allowed the compensation as prayed for with a direction to deposit the amount within sixty (60) days from the date of order failing which to carry interest at 6% p.a. from the due date till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.
8. Heard Sri J.Ashok Kumar in the place of Sri V.Narasimha Raju, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that there is no dispute with reference to the deceased holding a proper ticket to travel by the train but the fact is that he tried to catch hold of running train as a result of which he fell down and received injuries which would amount to carelessness and negligence on his part by reason of which it is to be deemed that the injuries received by him were self inflicting injuries which fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act as a result of which the applicants are not entitled to the compensation claimed and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions relying upon a decision reported in Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad vs. K.Balakrishnaiah and Others[1] .
10. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether the said act of the deceased would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and the order is sustainable or not.
11. Section 124-A of the Act reads as follows:
“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 dependant of a 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 or 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.”
12. In Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad vs.
K.Balakrishnaiah and Others, similar act of the deceased concerned therein was held to be causing of self inflicted injuries which would fall within the purview of exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Act by a reason of which the applicants therein were held to be not entitled to the compensation claimed.
13. On the other hand, the Supreme Court, reported in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Othrs[2] , held that such acts would not come within the purview of any exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Act and infact fall under the main limb of it.
14. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment, the act of the deceased would not fall within the ambit of the exceptions but fall under the main limb of Section 124-A of the Act and still she or her kith and kin are entitled to compensation subject to holding a valid ticket to travel by the train. The circumstances of the case categorically disclose that by the time the deceased entered the platform of the railway station, the train was moving already and for the purpose of catching the train in order to reach his destination, he hurriedly tried to board the train while it was in motion and in that process, slipped and fell down and received injuries which does not amount to criminal negligence to deny the compensation claimed by the applicants in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. Therefore, there are no merits in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal is to be upheld dismissing the appeal.
16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 14-02-2006 passed in O.A.A.No.335 of 2002 on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad and there shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
10th March, 2011 AMD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
C.M.A.No.1017 OF 2006
Date:10-03-2011
AMD
[1] 2004(1) ALT 100 (F.B.) [2] 2008 ACJ 1895
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the deceased's act of attempting to board a moving train constitutes self-inflicted injury falling under Section 124-A exceptions?
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Tribunal's compensation order is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad vs. K.Balakrishnaiah and OthersDistinguished¶26
2004(1) ALT 100
Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and OthrsFollowed¶37
2008 ACJ 1895
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
Nethala Ramakrishna
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
