Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Borra Vijayalakshmi And Ors. on 20 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: II(2005)ACC368
JUDGMENT V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. This appeal by Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad is against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 120 of 1997 dated 3.6.1998.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein along with two others filed O.A.A. No. 120 of 1997 before the learned Tribunal alleging that the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent while travelling in Train No. 404, Guntur-Repalle passenger, from Tenali to Repalle on 1.4.1996, fell down from the running train between Penumarru Railway Station and Bhattiprolu Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which, he suffered instantaneous death. The respondents claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Siva Venkata Subrahmanyam on account of "untoward incident". The appellant herein opposed the application on two grounds, namely, that the accident did not occur on any railway station and that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger on the train. The learned Tribunal overruled the two objections and awarded the compensation as claimed duly apportioning the sum to all the claimants.
3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.H.R. Chowdhary, submits that when a person, who dies in an accident involving Railways, is an unauthorized passenger without ticket he cannot be granted any compensation. He would also contend that the deceased fell down from the running train between the two railway stations, not within the premises of a railway station, and, therefore, Sections 123 and 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 (the Act, for brevity) are not attracted. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondents placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a member, in Union of India v. Uggina Srinivasa Rao , submits that the factum of Subrahmanyeswara Rao travelling in the train is proved and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation towards the death of the husband of the first respondent on account of untoward incident.
4. "Untoward incident" is defined in Section 123(c) of the Act. As per the definition, an accidental fall of any person from the train carrying passengers is an "untoward incident". The compensation on account of untoward incident is dealt with by Section 124-A of the Act, which reads as under:
124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident--When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes,-
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes victim of an untoward incident.
5. A plain reading of the above provision and a true consideration of the same would show that when any person is a victim of "untoward incident", the railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation. In such an event, the wrongful act/negligent or default on the part of railway administration or any defence available in any other law would not exempt railway administration from paying the compensation. The explanation below Section 124-A of the Act clarifies that "passenger" is a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, oh any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
6. The learned Counsel would place considerable stress on the explanation to seek exception from the rigour of law in payment of compensation. To my mind though a person travelling by a train carrying passengers without ticket is not entitled for compensation, the burden to prove that railway administration is exempted from paying compensation for untoward incident on the ground of a person not buying a ticket would heavily lie on the railway administration. There are two reasons for this. First, it is well settled that when a person seeks exemption from any liability, the burden in justification of such exemption would certainly lie on the person seeking such exemption. Secondly, under Section 137 read with Section 55 of the Act, ticketless travel is made a culpable offence attracting imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Needless to point out that unless the statute so requires when an offence is alleged against a person the burden lies on the prosecution to show that such person has violated law by not buying the ticket.
7. In overruling objection by appellant, learned Tribunal correctly drawn an inference that at the time of inquest on the dead body of the deceased the ticket might have been lost and that P.W. 2, who is the person accompanied the deceased to the railway station, spoke that he saw Subrahmanyeswara Rao buying the railway ticket. There was no rebuttal of this statement and, therefore, the learned Tribunal observed that it cannot be concluded that a person was travelling without a ticket in situation as was presented before it. For this reason, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant must be held as without merit.
8. Insofar as the second submission is concerned the definition of untoward incident as contained in Section 123(c) of the Act does not admit the reading of the provision. The submission is, therefore, rejected. In Union of India v. Uggina Srinivasa Rao, (supra) this Court considered the scope of Sections 123, 124 and 124-A of the Act and dealing with the question whether accidental fall from a compartment of the train would amount to "untoward incident" laid down as under:
The deceased is bona fide passenger and while travelling on a train accidentally fallen down from the running train and received grievous injuries resulting in his death. Hence this is an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act and as such the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation in pursuance of Section 124-A of the Act. It has to be held that the accidental fall from any part of the compartment is covered by untoward incident. If there is a fall from the steps leading to the compartment, it is fall from the train. The steps of the compartment cannot be dissociated from the compartment. They are integral part of the compartment. Therefore, the contention that the deceased met with an accident while boarding a running train is not an untoward incident, cannot be accepted. Also the contention that the person who is trying to board a train is not a passenger cannot be accepted.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. For the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.