Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 363
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - SECUNDERABAD
Kunati Raveen Kumar Reddy, Member (Technical)
Pullama Chandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA II (U)/SC/ 31 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.A.Fayaz
For the Respondents: K.V.V.Vedantha Chary
The court ruled that the death of the minor was caused by the negligent act of the father, disallowing compensation as it did not qualify as an untoward incident under the Railway Act.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(2), 124-A and 125 - Claim for compensation for the death of a minor due to a train incident - Applicants alleged a sudden train movement caused the incident, while the Respondent claimed negligence from the applicant due to intoxication - Court found the act to be self-inflicted injury due to gross negligence of the father - Not an untoward incident as per statutory definitions. (Para 18)
(B) Negligence and Liability - The court determined that the actions of the father, who was in an intoxicated state, were reckless and amounted to a criminal act exonerating the respondent from liability - Compensation denied as the death was not due to an untoward incident as defined in law. (Paras 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
Applicants claimed compensation for the death of their three-year-old daughter due to alleged negligence by the Railway. The Respondent stated the father was heavily intoxicated and neglected safety while attempting to debark a moving train. A contrasting account of the incident was provided by the eyewitness.
Findings of Court:
The death of the deceased was ruled as caused by the father's reckless behavior, qualifying as self-inflicted injury, and thus compensation was denied under the Railway Act. The claim was dismissed without costs as the applicants could not prove the incident constituted an untoward occurrence.
Issues: The court considered whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and if the incident fell under exceptions allowing compensation. The court found against the applicants on these issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that not all incidents involving trains qualify for compensation; gross negligence or self-inflicted actions that cause injury, particularly in an intoxicated state, fall outside the definition of an untoward incident as per the Railway Act. (Paras 20-22)
Result: Claim application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for compensation regarding the death of a minor in a train incident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's denial of liability based on plaintiff's negligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 15) |
| 3. court finds father’s actions grossly negligent influencing outcome. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court denies compensation establishing self-inflicted nature of incident. (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
1. The applicants Pullama Chandra Reddy and another filed this application under Sec.16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 Sec.123 (2), 124-A and 125 of the Railway Act 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest for the death of Pullama Patelamma @ Lucky D/o Pullama Chandra Reddy, (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in an alleged untoward incident.
2. The claim of the applicants is that on 23.07.2023 at approximately 3:00 PM, the father of the deceased, along with the deceased child (Patelamma), his wife, and mother, proceeded to Mahabubnagar Railway Station with the intention of travelling to Budvel to meet his elder brother’s daughter, who was leaving for United States. Upon arrival at the station, the father purchased a combined journey ticket (Ticket No. 46367558) for three adults from Mahabubnagar to Falaknuma. As the deceased was only about three years old, no separate ticket was purchased for her. All four boarded Train No.07587 Mahabubnagar–Kacheguda DEMU. When the train arrived at Budvel Railway Station, the father of the deceased attempted to deboard the train while holding the child. However, the train suddenly started moving, causing both the father and the deceased to fall between the train and the platform. The child slipped under the wheels of the moving train, sustained fatal injuries, and died on the spot. The father also suffered injuries in the incident.
3. The Respondent Railway filed Written Statement denying various averments made in the application and has put the applicants to strict proof of the same. Respondent denied that the deceased herein was a bonafide passenger of Tr.No.07587 Mahabubnagar – Kacheguda DEMU of 23.07.21023. Further Respondent challenged the averment in the claim application that the deceased was aged three years and that ticket was not required for the alleged travel. Further Respondent submitted applicant No.1, having been in a heavily inebriated condition and by carrying the deceased in his hand attempted to de-board from the said running train, even having been cautioned against such misadventure by the Home-Guard as well as other passengers and in his said attempt he fell down along with the deceased from the said train and both fell in the gap between the said running train and the platform. Such act of deboarding from a running train, by carrying a child, to any reasonable mind is hazardous for one’s own safety as well as for the safety of the child he is carrying and also amounts to an act of criminal negligence. Hence the death of the deceased can in no manner be held to have been on account of any untoward incident, within the meaning of the term as laid down under section -123(c) of the Railways Act and the case is covered under exceptions provided for under proviso (b) and (c) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Respondent denied the veracity of all the documents filed by the applicants. The respondent consequently prayed to dismiss the claim application.
4. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train in question and died as a result of untoward incident?
2) Whether the incident falls under any exception of Rule 124 A or not?
3) Whether the Applicants is/are the Dependents of the deceased?
4) Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed?
And to what relief?
5. The Applicant No.1 filed his affidavit as AW.1 and documents filed by him are marked as Ex.A1 to A9. On behalf of Respondent, Shri M.Nagaraju filed affidavit as RW1 and the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report filed
