##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:21902 APHC010343452019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 475 OF 2019 Between:

1. D GANGAIAH, S/O D.AYYAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE LABOUR R/O. SIVUNIPALLI VILLAGE

BHAKARPET POST, SIDDAVATTAM MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT

2. D.LAKSHMAMMA @ VENKATA LAKSHUMMA, W/O D.GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE LABOUR R/O. SIVUNIPALLI VILLAGE BHAKARPET POST, SIDDAVATTAM

MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.)

2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

2026:APHC:21902

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 475 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims

Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A II (U) No.295 of 2013, dated 21.06.2019 the Applicants have preferred the

present Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicants before the

Tribunal are that on 06.09.2012 one D. Ayyavaraiah (deceased) with a view to go to Nandyal went to Vijayawada Railway Station in the early hours of 06.09.2012, purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No. A78845826 from Vijayawada to Nandyal and boarded the train No. 67298, Vijayawada – Ongole Passenger. While travelling, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said train at K.M.374/9-13 in between Nidubrolu and Appikatla Railway Stations due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks of the running train. As a result, he was dragged by the train, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Thus, the Claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation

from the Respondent/ Railways.

3. The Respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the claim

of the applicants by way of preliminary objections, and contended that as per Para –XV of the Inquest Report, the deceased with a view to commit suicide, went on the Railway Track near PBN College between K.M.No.374/9-13

2026:APHC:21902 posts, he fell down under an unknown train, sustained injuries and he might have died due to any other reasons. As such, the Claim does not fall within

the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124(A) of Railways Act-1989.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by

the Tribunal for inquiry/trial:

1) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependents of the deceased?

2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3) Whether the applicant(s) is/ are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief.

5. During the course of trial/enquiry, Applicant No.1 got examined as

A.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On behalf of Respondent Railway, none

were examined and no documents were marked.

6. Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material available in

record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not travelling at the time of incident and that the incident cannot be called an ‘untoward incident’. The deceased committed a suicide which is covered as an exception under proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and dismissed the Claim

Application.

7. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of the Tribunal, the Applicants

have preferred the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railway Act to the present case and in holding that the death of the deceased does not

fall under the definition of Untoward Incident.

2026:APHC:21902

8. Heard both the counsel and perused the material in