Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 470 (AP)

S. C. Railway, Secunderabad v. Razia Begum

2004-04-12

ELIPE DHARMA RAO

body2004
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed in O. A. A. No. 110/97 by the learned railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarding Rs. Two Lakhs towards compensation. ( 2 ) THE facts are that on 13-10-1997 Akbar pasha (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), his wife and his minor daughter boarded train No. 368, Hyderabad - Kazipet passenger at Secunderabad Railway station to go to kazipet and when the said train halted at Aler Railway station, the deceased got down and after taking tea at the station, canteen, was returning to board the train and in the process when the train moved the deceased fell down on the track and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The dependants of the deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. The railways contested the claim petition stating, inter alia that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the train and that the act of the deceased does not come within the purview of "untoward incident" and that therefore the Railways is not liable to pay compensation. The lower tribunal having considered the material available found that the Railway is liable to pay compensation and awarded Rs. Two lakhs towards compensation. Challenging the same the railways filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) SRI B. H. R. Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the Railways contends that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that the negligent act of the deceased inboarding the train and consequential fall from the train and his death does not come within the purview of Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act and thereby the incident is not an "untoward incident" and that therefore the Railways is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 4 ) BEFORE the tribunal below the wife of the deceased, who was travelling in the train along with the deceased, was examined as a. W. I and the documents Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased. Undoubtedly the wife of the deceased, who was examined as A. W. 1, was accompanying the deceased when the accident took place and has collected the journey ticket covering the journey of herself, the deceased and the minor daughter. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased. Undoubtedly the wife of the deceased, who was examined as A. W. 1, was accompanying the deceased when the accident took place and has collected the journey ticket covering the journey of herself, the deceased and the minor daughter. In the inquest report also the GRP have mentioned that the deceased and his family were travelling on a journey ticket No. 00139177 and the same has been filed in the court. Therefore it was proved that the deceased is a bona fide passenger. The contention of the Railways that the negligence exhibited by the deceased in holding a cup of tea in one hand and attempting to catch the moving train takes the case out of the ambits of "untoward incident" and therefore absolves the Railways of all liabilities, cannot be acceptable since U/s 123 and 124-A of the act, which governs the compensation for untoward incident, there is no cognizance for any negligence or carelessness shown either by the victim of the accident or by the railways. Therefore, the lower tribunal, very rightly in my opinion, held that the accidental fall of the deceased is an "untoward incident". Accordingly the tribunal made the Railways liable to pay compensation to the claimants of the deceased. Therefore I do not see any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal to the claimants. ( 6 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.