Gist: Head Note: Cases referred: 1. (2019) 12 SCC 387 2. (2019) 3 SCC 572 3. (2024) 9 SCC 656 4. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350

DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED : 24.08.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 11.09.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : 15.09.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

__________________________

JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

APHC010232782021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 159 OF 2021

Between:

1. N.Sri Rama Prasad, S/o Late Veeranna, aged about 44 years, Occ. Medical Agency, R/o D.No.28-8-4, Papulavari Street, Ward No.24, Tanuku, West Godavari District - 534211

2. N.Venkata Kanaka Durga, R/o D.No.28-8-4, Papulavari Street, Ward No.24, Tanuku, West Godavari District - 534211 ...Petitioners

AND

1. Union of India, rep., by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...Respondent

Appeal Under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against judgment dt.27.11.2020 in OAII (U) No.203 of 2012 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur, and prayed to allow the appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court.

Counsel for the Petitioners: GEETHA MADHURI N S

Counsel for the Respondent J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL)

The Court made the following order:

J U D G M E N T:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 27.11.2020 passed in O.A.II(U).No.203 of 2012 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was resident of Tanuku and had completed his Engineering course. He was a bachelor. With a view to visit his paternal uncle at Pinninty Village, Srikakulam District, he went to Tanuku Railway Station along with his father during the intervening night of 28/29.03.2012. His father purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Tanuku to Visakhapatnam, and the deceased boarded Train No.57229 on 29.03.2012 and commenced his journey in the presence of his father. After the departure of the train, his father returned from the Railway Station. While travelling in the train, due to heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, the deceased suddenly slipped and accidentally fell from the train at Tuni Railway Station, between Platform No.2 and the train, due to the sudden jerks of the running train. As a result, he was dragged by the train and sustained severe crush injuries to both his legs and hand, which were cut and separated by the wheels of the running train. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Central Hospital, Tuni, in a 108 Ambulance by the concerned Railway Station staff and officials through the Railway Police. However, on examination, he was declared dead by the Duty Doctor in the early hours of 29.03.2012. Hence, the Claimants/applicants filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation from the Respondent.

4. The Respondent/Railway Administration contested the claim by filing a Written Statement and denied all the allegations made in the Claim Petition. The respondent denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that deceased while attempting to get into the moving train from off-side, fell down and sustained injuries, and hence the injuries sustained are self-inflicted, for which, no compensation was payable.

5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

i. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger