THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.692 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2015 passed in

O.A.A.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’), this civil

miscellaneous appeal is filed by applicants.

2. Heard Mr. S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Sanjeev Reddy Gillella, learned Standing

Counsel for Central Government for respondents.

3. Applicants are heirs of deceased (one Jayamma), the deceased with her daughter Dhanalaxmi (applicant No.5) was travelling from Chandrapur to Kazipet with a valid journey ticket bearing No.19672513 by train No.7092, Patna Express. It is the case of applicants that deceased had an accidental fall from train at Hasanparthi Road station due to violent jerks, sustained grievous injuries, while being taken to Mahatma Gandhi Memorial (MGM) hospital, Warangal, by railway

officials, died on the way. Entire controversy revolves around issue whether Railways are liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased.

4. It is the case of Railways, that death was not due to accidental fall leading to an untoward incident within the meaning of 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989, but, was a deliberate act of jumping from the train which amounts to self inflicted injuries and by virtue of proviso to Section 124 of Railway Act, Railways are exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.

5. The Railway Tribunal considering the evidence of witnesses AW1 for applicants, RW1 and RW2 for respondents and the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A9 for applicants and Exs.R1 to R4 for respondents, concluded that death was self inflicted, that deceased deliberately jumped from running train at Hasanparthi Road station as she boarded a wrong train. Instead of boarding the passenger train for which she purchased the ticket, she boarded Patna Express with the permission of TTE. Hence, the voluntary and deliberate act of jumping from the moving train cannot be called as an accidental fall, and cannot be termed as an untoward incident but a self inflicted injury and the Tribunal in O.A.A.No.89 of 2007 on 18.06.2015, rightly held that applicants are not entitled for compensation and dismissed the application. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in this CMA.

6. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that deceased and her daughter Dhanalaxmi on 24.12.2005 were travelling from Chandrapur to Kazipet in train No.7092, Patna Express, with train ticket bearing No.19672513, deceased had an accidental fall from the train and sustained grievous injuries, died while shifting to MGM hospital, Warangal. It is further submitted that the Tribunal fell into error in concluding that deceased jumped from train. That, no evidence was adduced on behalf of Railway administration to bring home the fact that it was a self inflicted injury and said act is not under the exemption of Section 124 of Railway Act. It is also submitted that as Railways have not adduced any evidence that it was a self inflicted injury, the said act would fall under Section 123 of Railway Act, an untoward incident and the claim cannot be said to be an invalid claim. It is submitted that though RW1 and RW2 have been examined (in evidence), they did not speak as to the deliberate jumping while the train was moving. It is contended that though AW1, the daughter of deceased stated in her evidence, that her mother out of anxiety, tried to get down from the train, the same is pictured as the deceased tried to jump from the moving train at Hasanparthi Road station.

7. Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to a judgment of Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441, to Paragraph Nos.16.1 to 16.6 of the said judgment, and contended that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and the same would not fall under proviso to Section 124-A, (pl