APHC010243502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 401/2019 Between: 1. KOTHALANKA KAMESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE R/O SAMPARA(POST) PEDAPURI MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against orders Memorandum of Civil Miscelaneous appeal against the Judgment dated 07- 02-2019 passed in OAII(u) No. 125 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 J U D G M E N T: Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench (for brevity, „the Tribunal‟), in OA II (U) No.125 of 2012, dated 07.02.2019, the applicant has preferred the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 21.09.2009. As per the averments, the applicant purchased second class reserved tickets vide No.31520450, PNR No.114- 3345666 in Gowthami Express (train No.2737) for Berth 60 and 71 in S-3 and was travelling from Kakinada to Secunderabad along with her mother on 21.09.2009 and while coming back from wash room to her seat, due to sudden jerks, she fell down from the train and sustained serious injuries. She was admitted by the GRP in Jangaon Area Hospital, where after providing first aid, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where her right leg up to knee was amputated. Hence, the present claim. 4. The respondent-railways filed counter denying the averments of the application and contended that as per general diary entry, alleged accident occurred when the applicant tried to get down from running train at Bhongir, which amounted to self inflicted injury as it is not an accidental fall from running train. It is further contended that she tried to detrain at Raigir instead 3 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 of Bhongir and therefore her case falls within the exception clause of proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act and Railway is not liable to pay any compensation. It was further stated that in the statement given to police, the applicant has stated that she got down the train when it was in motion. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the Train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. Before the Tribunal, the applicant got examined herself as A.W.1 and the mother of the applicant was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondent-railways, none were examined but Ex.R1 was marked. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellant/applicant has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that though the applicant adduced evidence and also got filed Ex.A1 Attested copy of GD entry, Ex.A2 attested copy of report from Medical Officer, Ex.A3 Discharge card, Ex.A4 Medical certificate, Ex.A5 original journey ticket, Ex.A6 Disability certificate, 4 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 Ex.A7 OP chit, Ex.A8 photograph of injured and Ex.A9 copy of certificate of person with disability, without considering the same, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation to the applicant. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 11. Perused the entire material available on record. Before the Tribunal the applicant herself was examined as A.W.1 and deposed that on the date of the accident i.e., on 21.09.2009, she and her mother Ch.Varalakshmi intended to proceed to Secunderabad as her brother is doing some job in Ghatkesar temple. Having purchased second class reserved tickets in Gowthami Express, both of them boarded the train on 21.09.2009 and while coming back from washroom to her seat, due to sudden jerks, the applicant fell down and sustained serious injuries. She was admitted by the GRP in Jangaon area hospital and after providing first aid, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where her right leg up to knee was amputated. A.W.2, who is none other than the mother of the applicant and as well as co-passenger, was examined as A.W.2, who deposed in support of the applicant. 12. On behalf of respondent-railways, Ex.R1 DRM report was filed, which clearly discloses that the accident occurred when the applicant herself tried to get down from the running train at Bhongir station, which amounted to self 5 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 inflicted injury as it is not an accidental fall from running train and as she tried to detrain in Raigir instead of Bhongi, her case falls within the exception clause of proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act and the Railway is not liable to pay any compensation. 13. 13. However, the Tribunal basing on Ex.R1 have concluded that the applicant sustained injuries when she tried to get down from the running train at PF-2 of ZN Railway Station while attempting to get down at ZN thinking that the coming station is Bhongir, without completion of their journey. The Tribunal opined that when someone make such an attempt to get down from running train and got injured, it has to be treated as self inflicted injury falling within the exceptions (b) of proviso to Section 124A of Railways Act. It was further observed that no cogent material was placed to controvert the specific stand taken by respondent and as per the applicant‟s own case, the amputation of right foot at the level of mid foot took place because of this abortive attempt to alight from running train. Hence, the Tribunal held that it is not an untoward incident and under the above proviso of Railways Act, Railway is absolved to pay any compensation. Therefore, dismissed the said application. 14. Admittedly, the genuineness of journey ticket purchased by the applicant is not in dispute. It is to be noted that though the accident took place on 21.09.2009, the DRM report/Ex.R1 was submitted on 06.11.2014 i.e., after 6 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 a lapse of five years. Thus, there is inordinate delay in submitting the said report. 15. Under similar circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South East Central Railway1 held as follows: “3. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the Railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.02.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.04.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at D. Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., F.A.O. No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non- speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned Award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference. 4. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124A of 1 2018 ACJ 1460 7 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs.4 lakhs.” 16. Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward incidents) Rules, 2020, reads as follows: 7.Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Police.— (1) The Police on receipt of information of an untoward incident from general public or any Railway servant including Station Superintendent, the Police shall immediately initiate investigation and prepare inquest report or injury report in accordance with the procedure laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (2) The Police upon reaching the scene of the untoward incident shall inform the nearest/concerned Station Superintendent personally or over telephone or through SMS or any effective electronic means of its presence at the scene of the incident. The Police shall immediately take photographs of the incident along with dead body/victim at the spot along with the tracks/witness(es)/bystanders. (3) After preparation of report, as mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Police shall immediately give clearance certificate for movement of trains from the site of incident so that minimum delay is caused in restoration of train movement. (4) The Police shall prepare the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) and submit a copy of the same to Divisional Security Commissioner/Sr.DSC within 60 days from the date of untoward incident for onward submission to Divisional Railway Manager. (5) In the event of the Police failing to take photographs as stated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 above, the concerned DCP shall examine why the photographs were not taken and whether any action is warranted for the lapse. 8 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 17. Thus, as per Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward incidents) Rules, 2020, the DAR report shall be submitted within 60 days from the date of untoward incident. But, in the instant case, the report was submitted with an inordinate delay of five years. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the Railway Claims Tribunal, without considering the said aspect, came to a wrong conclusion and erroneously dismissed the application of the applicant. 18. In view of the same, since the genuineness of the ticket purchased by the applicant is not disputed and admittedly there is an inordinate delay of five years in submitting the DRM report, following the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo (referred supra), the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 19. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 have been amended and are referred to as “The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016”, wherein the amount under Schedule Item No.20 has been enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. 20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.02.2019 passed in OA II (U) No.125 of 2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, is hereby set aside. The applicant is awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per Item No.20 of the Schedule for the injuries. The respondent-railways is directed to pay the said compensation 9 VS,J C.M.A.No.401 of 2019 amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 29.01.2026 KGR