Dismissed

The Union of India v. C. Bujjaiah

Telangana HC21 Mar 2011CMA/118/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Union of India's civil miscellaneous appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation to the parents of a passenger who died after accidentally slipping and falling from a moving train. The court held the Tribunal correctly applied liberal construction of the Railways Act exceptions.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.118 of 2009 dismissed; no order as to costs.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATE.21-03-2011.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.118 OF 2009

¶6

Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND C. Bujjaiah and another. --- Respondents/ Applicants.

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶9

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.118 OF 2009

¶10

JUDGEMENT:

¶11

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) against order dated 04-11-2008 passed in O.A.A. No.263 of 2004 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of one C. Pollaiah (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) son of the applicants, allowing the claim.

¶12

2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the application.

¶13

3. The facts of the case are as follows :

¶14

On 28-08-2004 the deceased along with four others boarded train No.7423 Narayanadri Express at Singarayakonda railway station to go to Secunderabad purchasing a common journey ticket and at Cherlapalli railway station at about 07-30 a.m. on the next date he went to a wash basin near a door of his compartment and because of sudden jerks of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he died. Further, he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Hence the applicants being his parents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶15

4. The respondent filed written statement resisting the claim and further claiming that the deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants are not entitled to the compensation.

¶16

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

¶17

1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

¶18

2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of any train No.7423 Narayanadri Express traveling from Singarayakonda to Secunderabad to 28-082004?

¶19

3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

¶20

4) To what relief?

¶21

6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined himself as A.W.1 and co-passenger was examined as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. Further, on behalf of the respondent, Deputy Station Superintendent, Cherlapalli, was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked.

¶22

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the issues in favour of the applicants. The appeal is filed on the ground that the act of the deceased would amount to negligence and carelessness act which would fall within the ambit of the exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Railways Act which would disentitle the applicants to claim the compensation, whereas the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions.

¶23

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

¶24

1) Whether the act of the deceased would amount to

¶25

negligence and careless act and as such the applicants are not entitled to any compensation?

¶26

2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and its order is sustainable or not?

¶27

9. Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as follows : “Untoward incident” means –

¶28

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) ; or

¶29

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity ; or

¶30

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station : or

¶31

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”.

¶32

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

¶33

“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

¶34

by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident :

¶35

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to –

¶36

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him ;

¶37

(b) self-inflicted injury ;

¶38

(c) his own criminal act ;

¶39

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

¶40

(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.”

¶41

10. In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in UNION OF

¶42

INDIA Vs. PRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHRS^[1] , it is

¶43

observed “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 the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such victims or their kith and kin, it is to be liberally construed and hence they are also to be termed as bona fide passengers which entitle them to get necessary compensation. It is to be emphasized that none of the exceptions covers the act of trying to aboard a running train which results in slipping and falling down and receiving serious injuries”. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court made such interpretations the same is to be followed.

¶44

11. Further, as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabhi and Others Vs. Union of India

¶45

and anothe r^[2] the applicants are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of applications till the date of award and thereafter at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of realization of the said

¶46

amount.

¶47

11. Therefore, by virtue of the decision 1^st cited supra the deceased is to be termed as a bona fide passenger of the train and as such the applicants are entitled to the compensation claimed with proportionate interest by virtue of the decision 2^nd cited supra.

¶48

12. The Tribunal examined the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

¶49

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Dated:21-03-2011. Dsh.

¶51

[1] 2008 ACJ 1895 [2] (2009) 7 SCC 372

The Union of India v. C. Bujjaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. C. Bujjaiah

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

N.Lakshman, Vs Lakshmi Traders

Pallapu Ankamma Vs The Union of India

N.Lakshman, Vs M/s. Rajasree Cotton Company

Union of India Vs Chilukuri Padmaja

K. Sulochana Vs Mr. Bhagavandas

The Union of India Vs Wardhineni Venkayamma , Arthimala Venkayamma