APHC010343522019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 481/2019 Between: 1. M SUBRAMANYAM, S/O VEERA RAGHAVIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN- 524322 A.P 2. M.SREEDHAR KUMAR, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-524322 A.P 3. M.SURESH BABU, S/O SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-524322 A.P 4. M.SHREEDEVI, W/O BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-524322 A.P ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, General Manager,South Central Railway, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set-aside the order dated 22-03-2019 in OAII u No.236 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass 2 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 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 pleased to condone the delay. of 121 days in filing of the appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA No.481 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‟), Guntur in OA (IIU) No.236 of 2012, dated 22.03.2019, the applicants have prefeerred 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 as follows: On 04.04.2012 at about 20:40 hours, the deceased, Smt. M.Sugunamma, along with her husband, went to Nellore Railway Station to travel to Secunderabad. As she was a senior citizen and unable to climb the Foot Over Bridge, and since the train which she intended to board was about to arrive on Platform No.1, she, in order to reach the platform quickly, got down onto Platform No.4 and started crossing the railway track. After reaching Platform No.3 and while she was standing at the edge, Train No.12521 Barauni–Ernakulam Express, coming from the Vijayawada side, hit her. Due to which, she sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, holding a valid reserved ticket in Train No.12733 Narayanadri Express in Coach S-14, Berths No.49 and 52, dated 04.04.2012, which was seized by the GRP authorities. A case was registered under FIR No.36 of 2012, and post-mortem examination was conducted at D.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore. Therefore, the 4 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 applicants, being dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with costs and interest. 4. The respondent–Railways filed a written statement contending that the claim is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It was contended that the incident does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c), 124-A, and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989. It was further contended that the deceased, while crossing the railway track unauthorisedly, failed to notice the approaching train and was hit, resulting in her death, and therefore, the incident occurred due to her own negligence and carelessness and does not constitute an “untoward incident.” The respondent-railways prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question as alleged? 2. Whether the incident on account of which the victim alleged to have died is covered as an untoward incident in terms of provision of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the victim within the meaning Section 123(b) of the Railway Act, 1989 and are entitled to get compensation, as prayed for? 4. To what other relief, if any, the applicant and other dependents of the deceased are entitled? 5 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1stapplicant examined himself as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5i.e., Ex.A1/FIR, Ex.A2/Inquest report, Ex.A3/P.M. Report, Ex.A4/death certificate and Ex.A5/Family Member certificate. On behalf of respondent-railways, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1/D.R.M. Report was marked. 7. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was not an “untoward incident.” 8. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellants/applicants have filed the present appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence and in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not due to an untoward incident. It is submitted that the deceased was holding a valid ticket and the burden lies on the Railways to prove otherwise. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation to the applicant. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent–Railways supported the order of the Tribunal, contending that the deceased was crossing the railway tracks unauthorisedly and, therefore, the case falls outside the purview of Section 124-A. 10. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 11. In the case on hand, as per the material available on record, it is evident that the deceased has purchased ticket to travel in Narayanadri Express Train No.12733. Thus, there is no dispute that the deceased was holding a valid ticket and is therefore, a bona fide passenger. However, the claim of the applicants was negatived for the reason that the deceased met with the accident while crossing the railway track unauthorizedly and therefore it does not constitute an untoward incident. 12. The Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Rajalakshmi vs. The Union of India in C.M.A.No.4371 of 2019, dated 08.03.2021, under similar circumstances, where the deceased therein was also met with an accident while crossing the railway tracks, held as follows: “Constitutional Courts cannot brush aside the prevailing situations in our great Nation. We are aware of the fact that passages are provided in between one Platform to another platform and through such passages, Railway employees and passengers carrying goods, Senior citizens and wheel chair passengers and other passengers are allowed to cross for the purpose of reaching other platforms by the Railway officials as well as the RPF Police officials. Crossing through Railway tracks in the end of platforms are not prevented nor closed by the Railway authorities by putting gates or barry gates, if at all, it is meant for restricted usage. Even RPF / Police are not deployed to prevent the passengers from crossing the Railway track in order to reach the other platforms. When such crossing are freely permitted by the Railway authorities or RPF even in City Railway Stations, then there is no reason whatsoever to blame the passengers for the purpose of declining the benefit of compensation under the provisions of the Railway Act. The Railway authorities may 7 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 take a defense with over bridges are made available for the usage of passengers. For instance, in Chennai Egmore Railway Station, over bridge is very high and Senior citizens could not be in a position to climb the steps and such practical difficulties are also to be considered by the Railway authorities, more specifically, with reference to the current day developments and technological advancements. 15. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 64 years at the time of untoward incident. The passengers are witnessing the ill- health, senior citizen and wheel chaired people are freely permitted to cross the Railway track in the end of platform for the purpose of reaching the other platforms. This exactly is the reality and the truth prevailing. Such being the responsibility of the law enforcing officials, on what basis a poor passenger can be blamed for crossing the railway track unintentionally and by mistake in order to reach the other platforms. Thus, the authorities and the Railway Police are completely responsible and accountable for not effectively preventing such illegal activities in Railway Stations and in Railway premises. The complex nature of scenarios and situations prevailing in Railway Stations across the country cannot be neglected by the Courts and the Courts cannot shut its eyes with reference to the truth as well as the circumstances. The Railway authorities and the Railway Police force, after allowing the passengers freely to cross Railway tracks to reach the other platforms and in case of any untoward incident, blaming the passengers, can never be accepted by the Courts and all those officials including the Police officials must be held accountable and the Railways are bound to institute action against those officials, who have failed to perform their duties with utmost devotion. Further, negligence, lapses, dereliction of duty on the part of officials are also to be looked into for the purpose of prosecution. 16. The discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, would throw light that the Railway Clams Tribunal has not considered the 8 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 issues in Constitutional perspectives and with reference to the truth prevailing in Railway premises. In such circumstances, Courts are bound to adopt the Doctrine of Liberal interpretation, so as to ensure that the concept of social justice prevail and the livelihood of the dependants, who lost their near and dear and the breadwinner are saved. Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2019 passed in O.A.No.33 of 2019 is set aside and the civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.NO.4371 of 2019 stands allowed. No costs.” 13. Further, the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Vishnu Prasad Prajapati vs. Union of India1 also dealt with a similar issue and held as follows: “10. On perusal of record, this Court finds that the Railway has failed to prove that they have taken each and every preventive measure to restrict the persons from crossing the railway lines and, therefore, failure to take such preventive measures amounts to negligence or breach of statutory duty, and supports the finding that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident”. Under Section 124- A even if the person crossed the tracks; if crossing is accessible or easy even for a three years child, it implies a systemic failure of the railway to restrict access.” 14. From the above decisions, it is clear that when crossing the railway tracks are freely permitted by the Railway authorities or RPF and when the Railways have failed to prove that they have taken preventive measures to restrict such crossings of railway tracks, then there is no reason to blame the passengers for the purpose of declining the benefit of compensation under the provisions of Railway Act. 1 2025:MPHC-JBP:56408 9 VS,J CMA No.481 of 2019 15. In view of the above decisions and considering that the deceased in the instance case was a bona fide purchaser, having purchased a valid ticket for her travel and died due to being hit by a train while crossing the railway track to reach the other platform, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation cannot be denied to the applicants. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim of the applicants. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur in O.A.(IIU) No.236 of 2012 is hereby set aside and the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand allowed, by allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- as per the Schedule notified in the Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways, dated 22.12.2016, from the respondent- Railways for the death of the deceased. The said amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent-Railways within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the applicants are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with law in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 18.03.2026 KGR