( 1 ) THE two miscellaneous appeals are filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad challenging the orders respectively passed in O. A. A. No. 14 of 1998 and O. A. A. No. 41 of 1998 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad directing payment of compensation to the passengers involved in the railway accident. Since the common question arises in these two appeals with the consent of both the parties they can be disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE parties in this appeal are referred to as arrayed in the original application. One Uggina Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as the "injured person"), respondent in C. M. A. No. 3103 of 1998 of Anakapalle filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal in O. A. A. No. 14 of 1998 stating that on 1-12-1997 while he was travelling in Train No. 7016, Secunderabad - Palasa (Visakha Express) from Anakapalle to Visakhapatnam, he fell down accidentally from the coach at Anakapalle station and received injuries. He further stated that he got treated in the hospital. He, therefore, claimed compensation from the respondent-Railways. Respondents in C. M. A. No. 1183 of 1999, dependants of one K. Madhava Rao (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), who died in the accident that occurred on 28-11-1997 due to fall while boarding Train No. 123 UP Singareni Passenger at Manchiryal to go to Sirpur Kagaznagar, filed O. A. A. No. 41 of 1998 claiming compensation from the Railways.

( 3 ) THE respondent-Railways filed the written statement stating, inter alia, that the injury received by the applicant in O. A. A. No. 14/98 wa a self-inflicted injury since he was trying to board a running train and that, therefore, the incident does not fall within the ambit of "untoward incident". It was denied that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in Train No. 7016 Visakha Express. In the written statement filed in O. A. A. No. 41/98 the respondent-Railways stated that the death of Madhava Rao (for short the "deceased") was caused due to carelessness and negligence on his part in attempting to entrain the moving train at Manchiryal and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation.

( 4 ) BASING on the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues in both the applications as follows :1. Whether the applicant in O. A. No. 14/98 is a bona fide passenger?2whether the applicants in O. A. No. 41/98 are dependents of the deceased?3 Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?4 hether the accidental fall of the deceased as alleged is not an untoward incident?5 Whether the alleged accidental fall of the applicant is not an untoward incident?6 What is the nature and extent of injuries suffered?7 To what amount of compensation they are entitled to?

( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal the applicant in O. A. A. No. 14/98 examined himself as A. W. 1 and marked Exs. A.-1 to A-5. Applicant No. 1 in O. A. A. No. 41/98 was examined in support of her case and marked Exs. A-1 to A-6.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal after careful scrutiny of the evidence, both oral and documentary, on the question whether the applicant in O. A. A. No. 14/98 was a bona fide passenger, held that the applicant was travelling in the train on the valid monthly season ticket, Ex. A-1 and found that he was a bona fide passenger. Further it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act (for short the "act") the element of rashness or negligence either on the part of the victim or on the part of the Railways is not relevant to assess whether the incident can be taken within the purview of an untoward incident and found that the applicant got injured in an untoward incident coming within the purview of Sec. 124-A of the Act. According to the finding of the Tribunal and as per the medical certificates, Exs. A-2 and A-3 produced by the applicant it was observed that amputation of thigh of the applicant was taken place. Therefore, the Tribunal, though claim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document