Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 6
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - SECUNDERABAD
JUSTICE ANANT KUMAR, J
Sirla Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway – Respondent
OA II (U) No.13 of 2024 | OA II (U) No.14 of 2024
For the Applicants: Mr. Illyas Ahmed
For the Respondent: Mr.K.V.V.Vedantha Charya
Passengers crossing tracks instead of using designated pathways do not qualify for compensation under the Railways Act for untoward incidents.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2), 124A, 125 - Compensation claims for death of parents in railway incident - Applicants held not to be bona fide passengers as they crossed tracks instead of using available facilities - Claim dismissed. (Paras 1, 14, 20, 21)
(B) Untoward incident - Definition and applicability - The court clarified that incidents caused by trespassing do not qualify as untoward incidents under the Act, emphasizing the responsibility of passengers to adhere to safety regulations. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicants filed claims for compensation after their parents were killed by a goods train while crossing tracks instead of using available escalators. The incident was deemed not an untoward incident as defined under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deceased were not bona fide passengers at the time of the incident and were responsible for their own deaths due to negligence.
Issues: Whether the deceased were bona fide passengers and if the incident fell under the definition of an untoward incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deceased’s actions constituted trespassing, which negated their claim for compensation under the relevant sections of the Act.
Result: Claim applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim filed for parents' death in railway incident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the status of deceased as bona fide passengers. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
1. The above two claim applications have been filed by Sirla Kumari and her two brothers under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987 read with Sections 123(c)(2), 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act , 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- each with interest for the death of their mother Anantha Lakshmi (in OA II (U) No.13/2024) and father Addala Venkat Rao, (in OA II (U) No.14/2024) (hereinafter referred to as deceased persons) in an alleged untoward incident that occurred on 27.3.2023. As the applicants in each of these two cases are similar and the cause of action also arose from the same incident, the applications have been clubbed together for the sake of convenience.
2. The case of the applicant is that on 27.3.2023 evening at about 16.30 hrs the deceased persons came to Lingampalli railway station with a view to go back to their native place. They were having reserved journey ticket bearing PNR No.455-7934743 for train No.17256 Narasapur Express with Berth Nos.S5-36, S6-15 from Lingampalli to Narasapur. Upon enquiry, they were told that said train would start from Platform No.2, and hence with a view to go to Platform No.2 from Platform No.1, they being aged persons, could not climb the foot-over bridge, they crossed the railway tracks and while they were getting onto the Platform No.2, suddenly one goods train No.TAS SPL train came on Platform No.2 and hit the deceased persons, as a result of which they both died on the spot.
3. Respondent railway filed the Written Statement and contested the claim and denied the various averments made in the claim application contending that the claim is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no cause of action for the applicant to file the present claim application. They stated that present case does not fall within the ambit of Sec123(c) or Sec.124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The respondent railway further denied that applicant was a bonafide passenger of Train No.17256 Express of 27.3.2023 and died on account of an untoward incident. They further stated that the matter was investigated by the Sr.DSC, Secunderabad which revealed that there is a provision of escalator and wheel chair at Lingampalli railway station for senior citizens who cannot climb foot-over bridge due to age factor and the same was in working condition on the date of incident. The incident has occurred due to the own conduct of the deceased in trespassing the tracks, which is an offence under punishable under Sec.147 of the Railways Act for which applicant are not entitled to any compensation.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
2. Whether the incident falls under any of the exceptions to Sec.124A of the Railways Act?
3. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed?
and to what relief?
5. Applicant No.1 filed her as AW.1 and got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A12. Respondent examined Sri K.Vijaya Sekhar, Loco Pilot as RW.1 and SriL.Balanagaraju, Sr.Technician (Electrical Maintenance) as RW.2. The Divisional Railway Manager’s report is marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal has summoned the original CD file from GRP, Secunderabad, which they have produced and same is taken on record.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for Applicants and learned Counsel for Respondent. On consideration of material available on record and the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, the findings on the issues are recorded as follows:
F I N D I N G S ISSUE No.1 & 2
7. The Applicant No.1 filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as AW.1 wherein she stated that 10 days prior to the
