Advocates:
['P S AGRAWAL', 'M N NAVANDAR', '', 'R/SOLE SERVED']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2005

Keshav s/o Poshetty Vantankar,

Aged 12 years, Occupation Nil –

Minor, Through his natural

guardian (father) Poshetty s/o

Bapayya Vantankar, Aged 40

years, Occupation Business,

Resident of Nai Abadi, Ardhapur,

Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded.

Appellant

V E R S U S

Union of India, Through General

Manager, South Central Railway,

Secunderabad.

Respondent

Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.

DATED : 20th July, 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award passed by

the learned Members of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in

Claim Application No.136/OAII/RCT/NGP/2003.

2.

The appellant a minor boy aged about eight year got injured

when he fell down from a running train at platform No. 3 of Mudkhed

railway station at about 04.00 p. m. on 6^th September, 2003. He said

he and his friend one Rama boarded the train No. 441 down

(Aurangabad – Mudkhed passenger) after buying a ticket for

Mudkhed, at Nanded Railway Station. They boarded the train at

about 02.30 p. m. It is his case that when the train approached

Mudkhed railway station, both of them went towards the door of the

compartment and waited for the train to stop. It is his case that all of

2

a sudden there occurred a jerk and he fell down from the train and

slipped between the platform and the running train, and got injured.

Due to the injuries, he lost left hand and right leg. Both these limbs

were amputated. He also suffered injury to his head. Somehow the

appellant survived and made this claim. The railway administration

opposed the claim saying it was due to negligence of the appellant

the accident occurred.

In order to prove his case, the appellant examined his friend

Rama (and not himself), who was accompanying him at the relevant

time. The appellant’s witness Rama narrated the incident as narrated

in the claim petition. But, in the cross examination, he admitted that

the appellant was trying to get down from the train when the train was

still moving. In view of this admission, the respondent/Railway

Administration tries to argue that this “accidental falling of the

appellant from the train” would not amount to an “untoward incident”,

as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 placing

reliance on the proviso to Section 124 of the Act to suggest that the

injuries suffered by the appellant were “self inflicted injuries”.

3.

In order to appreciate this submission, one has to read the

relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter XIII of the Act is relating to

'liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers

due to accidents'. Section 123 (c) defines term “untoward incident”,

as under :

“untoward incident” means -

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the

meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist

and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of

1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attach or the

commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson,

by any person in or on any train carrying passengers,

or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or

booking office or on any platform or in any other place

within the precincts of a railway station; or

3

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from

a train carrying passengers.”

4.

The appellant made this claim under Section 124 seeking

compensation on account of his accidental falling from a train carrying

passenger