1 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 APHC010233392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 285/2019 Between: 1. CHORAGUDI DEVA SAHAYAM, S/O LATE RAJARATNAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O S.N.GOLLAPALEM, BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. CHORAGUDI KRUPA RAO, S/O LATE RAJARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O S.N.GOLLAPALEM, BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD-500 076. 2. KALAPALA PREMALATHA, D/O LATE RAJARATNAM W/O LATE GURUNADHAM ALIAS VINOD RAO ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersMemorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal, having been aggrieved by the. Judgment dt. 21-6-2019 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 70 of 2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench Counsel for the Appellant(S): 2 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants in OA/II/u/70 of 2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 21.06.2019, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 2. The appellants are the sons of late Choragudi Mariyamma (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). The appellants filed an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of their mother in an incident that occurred on 14.06.2006. It is their case that on the fateful day, the deceased, aged about 60 years, started from Gudivada Railway station to Pedana Railway station. In order to board the train bearing No.111, the deceased is said to have placed her luggage inside the train and while she was about to get on to the train, the train started and she fell down accidentally and sustained severe injuries to the right side of her head. Immediately, she was shifted to Machilipatnam in the same train for treatment and on 20.06.2006, she succumbed to injuries. As the deceased died due to the aforesaid alleged untoward incident, the appellants filed an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 3. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the application. It was contended that the deceased initially boarded a train from Mahcerla to Bhimavaram which was on platform No.1 and alighted the same from the off-side and while trying to board the train bearing No.111 which was on platform No.2 from its off-side, she slipped and fell down and her head hit drainage canal. As the incident is not an untoward incident and is a self- 4 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 inflicted injury, the respondent requested the Tribunal to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the Application is maintainable? 2. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased? 3. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question while travelling from Gudivada to Pedana? 4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 5. Whether the Applicants is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application? 5. During the course of trial, the appellant No.1 got examined himself as A.W.1 and one Sri Uppalapu Kanaka Durga Rao, retired Head Constable was examined as A.W.2. The respondent got marked Ex.R1 – Statutory Investigation Report. 6. The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that though the deceased would have fallen from the said train, she invited the injury to her own peril and opined that it is to be called a self-inflicted injury and that compensation could not be awarded to the claimants. Observing thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 21.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was preferred. 7. Heard Sri. P.L. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Uma Devi Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 8. Undisputedly, the manner in which the incident took place is not in dispute, but the question which has to be decided is whether the deceased is a bonafide passenger or otherwise. In the affidavit filed by the 1st appellant before the Tribunal, he reiterated the incident that has occurred on the fateful day by relying on the FIR, inquest report, postmortem examination report and specifically stated that the original ticket purchased by the deceased was confiscated by the Railway Police and the same was in the custody of the police. Whereas, the Head Constable of Government Railway Police, who was examined as A.W.2 deposed during the course of trial that he did not collect the ticket at the time of inquest as testified by the 1st appellant. The Tribunal, having considered the aforesaid contrary statements and observing that the CD file (Ex.A5) consists only the number of the ticket (13435629) and that no relevant details were ascertained, came to a conclusion that the appellants have not discharged their burden to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket of the said train. 9. A perusal of the cross examination of the Head Constable (A.W.2) would go to show that at the time of accident he examined the son of the deceased, as the deceased was unconscious and that he witnessed the ticket and mentioned the number of the ticket in the statement of the son of the deceased and also in part-1 of the CD report. He further deposed that he did not confiscate the ticket as the deceased was injured at the time of such examination. It is clear that the deceased was in possession of a ticket and the same was witnessed and the details of the same were noted by A.W.2. In such a case, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the sole statement of A.W.2 that he has not 6 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 confiscated the ticket into account to decide the issue whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not. 10. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. Rina Devi1, held that mere absence of ticket with an injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger and that the initial burden would be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. In the case on hand, admittedly, the 1st appellant in his affidavit has specifically stated that the particulars of the ticket the deceased was holding, were provided to the Head Constable (A.W.2) and the same were noted by A.W.2. Now, onus to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the respondent, which was admittedly not discharged. 11. The other ground on which the claim of the appellants was rejected by the Tribunal is that the deceased fell down and sustained injuries while she was boarding the train from its off-side. It held that the deceased did not sustain injuries accidentally as her act was not a negligent act but is a perilous act laden with fatal consequences and that it is a self-inflicted injury, which is covered as an exception under proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. As laid down in Union of India vs. Rina Devi Union of India vs. Rina Devi (1st supra) an injury or death occurring while a passenger is boarding or de-boarding a train squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, thereby attracting statutory compensation. The Court has categorically held that mere negligence on the part of the 1 AIR 2018 SC 2362 7 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 passenger, such as attempting to board the train from the offside or in an improper manner, does not disentitle the victim or their dependants from claiming compensation. It was further clarified that the expression “self- inflicted injury” must be construed to mean an intentional act and not one arising out of carelessness or inadvertence. Therefore, even if a passenger boards the train from the offside, such conduct cannot be treated as a self-inflicted injury, and the claim for compensation remains legally maintainable. 12. The term „self inflicted injury‟ used in the statue can be deduced as one which a person suffers on account of one‟s own action, which is something more than a rash or negligent act, but, it shall not be an intentional act of attempted suicide. The Apex Court held that there may be cases where there is intention to inflict oneself with injury amounting to self-inflicted injury which falls short of an attempt to commit suicide, there can also be cases where, irrespective of intention, a person may act with total recklessness, in that, he may throw all norms of caution to the wind and regardless to his age, circumstances, etc., act to his detriment. It is undisputable that the purpose of Section 124A of the Railways Act is to provide a speedy remedy to an injured passenger or to the dependants of a deceased passenger involved in an untoward incident. It provides for compensation to a passenger or his dependants who suffers injury or death, as the case may be. The question whether an act by which a passenger sustains injury while boarding a train through the off-side is a self-inflicted injury or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because a person suffered injury in the process of getting into the train through the offside, may not be sufficient to term it as a self- 8 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 inflicted injury, unless the facts and circumstances show that his act was totally imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the consequences. 13. In the present case, the material on record discloses that the deceased had alighted from one train on the offside and, in an attempt to board another train from its off side, accidentally slipped and fell, sustaining fatal injuries and succumbed to death. Such conduct on the part of the deceased undoubtedly reflects carelessness and lack of caution, as passengers are expected to board or deboard trains only from the platform side and in a safe manner. However, mere negligence or imprudent conduct on the part of a passenger cannot, by itself, be equated with a case of “self-inflicted injury” within the meaning of the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. For an injury to be termed as self-inflicted, there must be material to show that the deceased intentionally exposed herself to a known and imminent danger with the object of causing such injury. It can be said that the deceased, in the course of attempting to board the train in a hurried or careless manner, lost her balance and fell. Such an act amounts to negligence, but it does not rise to the level of a deliberate or intentional act resulting in self- inflicted injury. As such, mere carelessness of the deceased would not disentitle the appellants from seeking compensation. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands allowed by ay allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, in equal shares. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- and if 9 VS,J CMA_285 of 2019 the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount thus computed is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:05.02.2026. Gss