Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 875 (AP)

UNION OF INDIA v. V. M. RANGANADHAN

2006-07-21

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
( 1 ) THE respondent filed o. A. A. No. 90 of 2004 before the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, claiming compensation for the injuries received by him, while travelling from Chennai to vadodara on 3-4-2004. The respondent is a constable of Tamilnadu Police. He pleaded that on an official duty, he was travelling in the Navjeevan Express to Vadodara on 3-4-2004. According to him, he got down at ongole Railway Station to fill water in a can and when he was about to board into the train, it suddenly started with a jerk and thereby, he slipped and fell down between the train and the platform. His left leg is said to have been crushed. ( 2 ) THE appellant disputed its liability, by stating that the respondent sustained a self-inflicted injury and his claim falls under the exceptions in Section 124-A of the railways Act (for short the Act ). Through its order, dated 23-3-2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this civil miscellaneous appeal. ( 3 ) SRI B. H. R. Choudary, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the facts of the case disclose that the respondent was negligent and careless while boarding the train, after collecting water from the platform, and thereby, it deserves to be treated as a self inflicted injury, mentioned in clause (b) of Section 124-A of the Act. He further submits that being a Government servant, the respondent is entitled to be paid compensation by the State of Tamilnadu and thereby, he was not entitled to claim compensation under the Act. He places reliance upon Section 128 of the Act. ( 4 ) SRI A. K. Kishore Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client sustained injuries in an untoward incident, as defined under the Act, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the injury is a self-inflicted one. He further contends that the respondent did not claim any compensation from any other source, much less, was paid, and in that view of the matter, Section 128 of the Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) TWO contentions are advanced on behalf of the appellant. He further contends that the respondent did not claim any compensation from any other source, much less, was paid, and in that view of the matter, Section 128 of the Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) TWO contentions are advanced on behalf of the appellant. The first is that the injuries sustained by the respondent are self-inflicted in nature, and the second is that the claim is barred under Section 128 of the Act. ( 6 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is not disputed that the respondent was a bona fide passenger of navjeevan Express and that he sustained injuries, during the course of his travel. The contention of the appellant could have been appreciated, if only there was any evidence adduced on its behalf, to disclose that the respondent had indulged in any acts, on his own accord, resulting in the injuries. By its very nature, an untoward incident takes in its fold several contingencies and unless it is pleaded and proved that the victim concerned had an intention to sustain injury, on his own accord, the exception carved out in Section 124-A of the Act cannot be applied. There was hardly any evidence, in this regard, adduced on behalf of the appellant. ( 7 ) COMING to the second question, it is true that Section 128 of the Act gives an option to the victim of an untoward incident to claim compensation under the Act or the workmens Compensation Act or any other law for the time being in force. The effort of the Parliament is to enable the victims to choose any Forum of their choice. It goes without saying that if the victim of an accident chooses a particular remedy, it shall not be open to him to claim compensation under other provisions, including the one under the Railways Act. Except stating that the respondent is entitled to be paid compensation by the State Government also, it was not specifically pleaded, much less established, that he was paid compensation by any other Agency, mentioned in Section 128 of the Act. In fact, the respondent filed an affidavit before this Court, stating that he did not make any claim for compensation, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, before any other Agency, including State Government. In fact, the respondent filed an affidavit before this Court, stating that he did not make any claim for compensation, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, before any other Agency, including State Government. ( 8 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon a judgment of the then Mysore High Court in smt. Zaibunnisa v. The Divisional superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli, air 1965 Mys. 306. In that case, it was found that the claimant received compensation under the Workmens compensation Act and thereafter, submitted a claim under the Railways Act. Such a claim was held to be barred. The facts, in the present case, are different. Therefore, the contention advanced by the appellant cannot be accepted. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs.