Dismissed

The Union of India v. Mohd. Khaleel

Telangana HC1 Mar 2011CMA/116/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Railway Administration against the Railway Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation for a passenger's injury after accidentally falling from a moving train. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that such accidents invoke strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, excluding self-inflicted injury exc

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed in the circumstances of the case without costs; Tribunal order upheld.

The Union of India Vs Mohd. Khaleel — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATE.01-03-2011.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.116 OF 2009

¶6

Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Mohd. Khaleel. --- Respondent/ Applicant.

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶9

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.116 OF 2009

¶10

JUDGEMENT:

¶11

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 12-11-2008, passed in O.A.A. No.289 of 2004, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the amputation of right hand at the shoulder of the applicant, partly allowing the claim.

¶12

2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A. No.289 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal.

¶13

3. The claim of the applicant is as follows :

¶14

On 02-11-2004 the applicant with a view to go to Jadcherla came to Mahabubnagar railway station and aboarded in the second class general compartment of train No.524 Guntur – Kachiguda passenger holding second class monthly season ticket bearing No.1637920 valid between Jadcherla - Mahabubnagar railway stations from 08-10-2004 to 07-11-2004 and when the train halted at Jadcherla railway station many passengers got down from the train with their luggages as a result of which much delay was caused to the applicant to get down from the train and in a hurry he tried to get down from the moving train and then he slipped and fell

¶15

down accidentally between the platform and the train at Jadcherla railway station and it is also claimed that he fell down due to sudden jerks of the train and further it is claimed that because of the impact of the accident, he received crush and cut injuries and his right shoulder was amputated. It is further claimed that he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the application was filed.

¶16

4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the claims of the applicants and further asserting that the injuries sustained by the applicant would amount to receiving self inflicted injuries and as such the application should be dismissed.

¶17

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal :

¶18

1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train in question?

¶19

2) Whether the Applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

¶20

3) Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-?

¶21

4) To what relief?

¶22

6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the respondent, examined RW.1 and message issued by the Station Master, Jadcherla, Railway station, was marked as Ex.R-1.

¶23

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal partly allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization and further permitting the applicant to withdraw Rs.1,70,000/- with a direction that the balance amount should be kept in fixed deposit in

¶24

State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad, for a period of three years. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred.

¶25

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the deceased was holding a valid second class monthly season ticket to travel by the train in between the said two stations, he fell down from the running train because of his own fault which would attract the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is not valid and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to :

¶27

1) Whether the act of the deceased would come within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 2) Whether the Tribunal examined the material properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is tenable or not?

¶28

10. Point Nos.1 and 2: There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1, whereas, the dispute is whether the act of the deceased would fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Act?

¶29

11. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides :

¶30

“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

¶31

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 :

¶32

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.”

¶33

In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS^[1] , it

¶34

was held as follows :

¶35

“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 of railway passengers from 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.

¶36

16. The accident in which Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to section 124-A. The

¶37

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.

¶38

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.”

¶39

12. So, by virtue of the decision cited, such acts of the deceased should not be brought within the ambit of any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and still he is to be treated as bona fide passenger of the train by which the deceased traveled or intended to travel. Further as the decision cited supra is of the Apex Court, it has to be followed.

¶40

Therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case without costs.

¶41

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶42

Dated: 01-03-2011. Dsh.

¶43

[1] 2008 ACJ 1895

The Union of India v. Mohd. Khaleel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Mohd. Khaleel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Koteswara Rao Vs The Union of India

Union of India Vs Smt. T.Laxmi

Moripi Raju Vs The Union of India

The Union of India Vs Manthena Yadagiri

The Union of India Vs Patan Asadulla Khan

The Union of India Vs Smt.B.Bhemakka