( 1 ) A Division Bench of recorded a dissent with decisions of the this court by an order dated 22. 10. 2002 two earlier Division Benches of this court in Union of India v. Uggina Srinivasa Rao, 2003 ACJ 402 (AP) and Union of India v. B. Koddekar, 2003 ACJ 1286 (AP) and made a reference in respect of civil miscellaneous appeals preferred to this court, by the Railways under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 against the respective orders of Railway Claims Tribunals.

( 2 ) WHETHER a passenger trying to board or alight from a running train or standing near the door, jumped from the compartment, crossing the railway track or leaning out of the carriage; and during the course of such circumstance had fallen down and was either injured or had died, was entitled to compensation from the Railways under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 ( the Act ) is the question that in substance arises for consideration in this reference. Incidentally whether wrongful, careless, imprudent or negligent conduct of a person in any of the places within the precincts of a railway station [as enumerated and defined in section 123 (c) of the Act] would entitle him to compensation, also falls for consideration.

( 3 ) IN Srinivasa Rao s case, 2003 ACJ 402 (AP), on facts the claimant while travelling on Visakha Express fell down from the coach at Anakapalli Station and received injuries. He thereupon raised a claim for compensation. The Railways had resisted the claim contending that the injury received was a self-inflicted injury since the claimant was trying to board a running train and the occurrence was therefore not comprehended within the expression untoward incident . The Railways also contended that the claimant was not a bonaflde passenger. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant was a bona fide passenger and that the rashness or negligence of the victim was not relevant in view of the provisions of section 124-A of the Act, he must be held to have sustained the injury in an untoward incident and was therefore entitled to compensation. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the Railways preferred an appeal to this court. The Railways contended that as the injury was received while the claimant was attempting to enter a running train, the injury is a self-inflicted injury and, therefore, the Railways were exempted from the liability to pay compensation, the incident in which injury was received is not an untoward incident and that carelessness and negligence on the part of the claimant in attempting to enter moving train is comprehended with the meaning of self inflicted injury under the proviso (b) to section 124-A of the Act, disentitling him compensation. This court while rejecting the said contention and, therefore, the appeal held that the claimant was a bona fide passenger and a fall from the steps leading to the compartment is a fall from the train, that as the claimant met with an accident and suffered injury, he was entitled to compensation.

( 4 ) KODDEKAR s case, 2003 ACJ 1286 (AP), is another decision of a Division bench of this court recorded as a common order in five appeals of the Railways. In one of the appeals death occurred while boarding a passenger train. The victim fell and was run over by the train. The death in another case occurred while getting down from a train, the passenger slipped and sustained injuries followed by death. In another case a season ticket-holder while standing at the door of the train slipped, fell down, went under the wheels of the train and died on the spot. In the fourth case also the death had occurred when the victim slipped and fell down from the train and in the last case while getting down from the train the victim fell down and later on he died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said incident. In all the cases the Railways claimed exemption from liability on the ground that the respective victims were attempting to get into a moving trai