Telangana High Court

J Sulochana, Chittoor Dist And 3 Others vs Union Of India, Secunderabad on 22 July, 2024

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.702 of 2017


JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants / applicants

aggrieved by the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench,

Secunderabad in O.A.A.No.121 of 2009 dated 26.12.2016 for dismissing the

claim application filed by them seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased Jayaseelan in an untoward incident of accidental fall on 02.07.2008

from the train carrying passengers.

2. The appellants / applicants were the wife and sons of the deceased

Jayaseelan. The case of the applicants was that on 02.07.2008 at 05:00 PM, the

deceased along with his villager by name M.Babu had been to

Bommasamudram Railway Station and the deceased purchased a journey ticket

from Bommasamudram to Chittoor and boarded into the general compartment

of train No.166 MEMU Passenger with a view to go to Chittoor. When the said

train was passing between Katpadi - Ramapuram at Kilometer No.12/8-9 posts,

the deceased accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train due to the

speed and jerks of the train at about 05:20 PM and sustained serious injuries and

died on the spot.

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

3. The respondent - Railways filed written statement contending that a false

story was created for the purpose of claiming compensation from the

respondent. On 03.07.2008, at 10:00 hours, the on-duty gang man Sri G.Ellaiah

noticed a male dead body aged about 40 years lying between the track at

Kilometer No.12/8-9 posts between Ramapuram and Katpadi Railway Stations

and reported to on-duty Deputy Station Superintendent, Ramapuram, who in

turn sent a message to Government Railway Police (for short "GRP), Chittoor

about the dead body. The GRP, Chittoor registered a case, conducted

investigation in the presence of Sri T.Anandaiah, Assistant Sub-Inspector,

Railway Protection Force (for short "RPF), Chittoor and found that the deceased

was not in possession of any journey ticket. There were no direct eye-witnesses

for the alleged accidental fall of the deceased from the running train. The

conclusion drawn by the GRP in the inquest report that the deceased while

travelling in some un-known train fallen down, since the body was found lying

near the railway track, was only imaginary. Investigation had been caused in

the matter as per the provisions of the Railway Passengers (Manner of

Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003. The investigation revealed

that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the death was caused due to

his own negligence and imprudent act, for which the respondent was not

responsible. In the said circumstances, it was not a case of accidental fall of the

deceased from the train. The alleged incident, if any, was caused by the

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

criminal acts of the deceased, which would disentitle the applicants from

claiming any compensation for such self inflicted injuries due to his own

criminal act, which falls under exception a, b and c of Section 124 -A of the

Indian Railways Act, 1989. The applicants shall be put to strict proof that the

deceased was a bonafide passenger by producing the journey ticket. The

applicants shall be put to strict proof that the case falls under Section 124-A and

Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and prayed to dismiss the application

with costs.

4. Basing on the said pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the

issues as follows:

i) Whether the application is maintainable?

ii) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased?

iii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.166 MEMU Passenger, while travelling from Bommasamudram to Chittoor on 02.07.2008?

Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

iv) Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?

v) To what relief?

5. The applicant No.1, the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and

got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent.

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

The Divisional Railway Manager's (for short "DRM") report was marked as

Ex.R1.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the claimants holding that AW.1 had

no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. The DRM report was based on

investigation by Inspector, RPF, which concluded that "deceased was not a

bonafide passenger and travelling by standing near the door ways of the coach,

which was not intended for travelling of the passengers and it was an offence

punishable under Section 156 of the Railways Act, 1989". There was

absolutely no reference of purchasing of journey ticket by the deceased

anywhere. As such, the death of the deceased was due to his own negligence

and the respondent - Railways were not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated

26.12.2016 in O.A.A.No.121 of 2009, the applicants preferred this appeal.

8. Heard Ms.Geeta Madhuri, learned counsel representing Sri T.L.Krishna

Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants on record and Sri Ananthula

Ravinder, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent - Railways.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in

dismissing the application inspite of the final report of the GRP, which

categorically held that the deceased died on account of accidental death. The

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

eye-witness by name M.Babu was examined by the GRP, who stated about the

purchase of the ticket by the deceased and boarding train No.166 MEMU

Passenger on 02.07.2008. The respondent -Railways failed to adduce any

evidence. The Tribunal failed to follow the well settled principle that the

burden would lie upon the respondent to prove that the deceased was not a

bonafide passenger and placed reliance upon the DRM report, which was dated

1 year 3 months after the incident on 02.07.2008. The DRM report was dated

01.11.2009. The accidental fall from the train was admitted both in the inquest

and final reports. The applicants by filing the inquest and final reports had

discharged the initial burden laid upon them. The body of the deceased was

dragged up to 18 sleepers and was found in a mutilated condition. In such

circumstances, the ticket purchased by the deceased might have been lost. The

respondent - Railways had not examined the Travelling Ticket Examiner (for

short "TTE") to show that the deceased had not purchased any ticket. The

statement of M.Babu, who was shown as an eye-witness in the final report was

not disputed. The said final report was also included in the DRM report. The

DRM report was completely insufficient and placed relied upon the judgments

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and

Others 1; Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another v. General Manager, South-

Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

East Central Railway2 and in Jameela and others v. Union of India 3 and of

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Suman Sharma v.

Union of India 4 and of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and

Telangana in Shaik Mahboob Basha and Others v. Union of India 5and an un-

reported judgment of the High Court of Telangana in A.Sreenivasa Rao and

another v. Union of India, Secunderabad6 in C.M.A.No.862 of 2017 dated

22.04.2022.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Railways on the other

hand contended that there were no eye-witnesses to the incident. The deceased

was not a bonafide passenger. The body was found on the track. If the

deceased accidentally had fallen down from the train, the body could not be

found on the track, but would be found outside the track. The Tribunal on

considering all the aspects dismissed the case and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. On a perusal of the record, the applicant No.1 - the wife of the deceased

was examined as AW.1. She was not an eye-witness to the incident. Her

evidence is only to the effect that her husband Jayaseelan left the house on

2018 ACJ 1460

2010 ACJ 2453

2018 ACJ 2849

2016 ACJ 1882

C.M.A.No.862 of 2017 dated 22.04.2022.

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

02.07.2008 evening at 04:00 PM informing her that he was going to Chittoor by

a passenger train to meet his sister and that he would come back home on the

next day. On 03.07.2008 at 13:00 hours, the Railway Police, Chittoor informed

her that her husband met with a train accident near Ramapuram Railway Station

and died. Immediately on hearing that, she along with her children and other

relatives went to Chittoor Railway Police Station and found the dead body of

her husband and identified the same. The Police conducted inquest and after

postmortem handed over the dead body to them. Police informed them that her

husband while travelling in a passenger train from Bommasamudram to

Chittoor had accidentally fallen down from the train near Ramapuram Railway

Station and died. On 05.07.2009 M.Babu, who was their relative came home

after hearing the accidental death of her husband and informed them that he

accompanied the deceased on 02.07.2009 evening at 05:00 PM to

Bommasamudram Railway Station and also informed them that her husband

after purchasing a journey ticket up to Chittoor had boarded the 166 MEMU

Passenger at about 05:15 hours. The applicants had not examined the said Babu

as witness in O.A. before the Tribunal.

12. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of the FIR. Basing on the report given by the

Station Master, Chittoor Railway Station, wherein he stated that Sri G.Ellaiah,

Gang Man, reported about the male dead body aged about 40 years lying in

between the track at Kilometer No.12/8-9 between Ramapuram - Katpadi

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

Railway Stations, he gave the death message to the GRP and basing on the same

a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C (Death due to fallen from running train) was

registered as FIR No.36 of 2008 on 03.07.2008 at 12:00 hours. Ex.A2 is the

attested copy of the inquest report. The Gang Man G.Yellaiah @ Yellappa of

IT.No.475, Gang No.9 was shown as one of the witnesses to the inquest. The

inquest was conducted in the presence of the family members of the deceased.

As per column No.7 of the inquest, the dead body was found at Kilometer

No.12-8/9 posts, in between Ramapuram - Katpadi Railway Stations and it was

dragged from 57-58 sleepers to 72-74 sleepers. A part of the head was found

between 72-74 sleepers, brain was scattered here and there on the gravel,

forehead part of the head was broken and separated, right hand was broken

below shoulder and was hanging, right leg was broken and separated and was

hanging, left leg was broken below knee and was hanging, oil stains were there

all over the body. The pant and shirt were torn fully. It was also mentioned in

column No.15 of the inquest report that as per the scene of occurrence, the

position of the dead body, as per the statements of the blood relatives of the

deceased, as per the statement of the Key Man, who found the dead body, the

deceased while travelling in some un-known train going from Katpadi to

Tirupati side at Kilometer No.12/8-9 posts, 57-58 sleepers and dragged to 72-74

sleepers / posts. About 18 sleepers dragged, head broken and brain came out,

both legs broken, hand broken and hanging and died.

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

13. Thus, as per the inquest report, the deceased accidentally slipped and

fallen down from a running train while travelling from Katpadi to Tirupati side

between Katpadi - Ramapuram Railway Stations. As per the postmortem report

marked under Ex.A3, the deceased died due to injuries to vital organs like

spleen and head and due to shock and hemorrhage. Ex.A4 is the death

certificate of the deceased. Ex.A5 is the attested copy of the final report filed by

the Railway Police, Chittoor wherein it was recorded that on 05.07.2008, LW.8

(M.Babu) was present in the Police Station. He stated that on 02.07.2008, he

along with Jayaseelan went to Bommasamudram Railway Station. Jayaseelan

purchased a train ticket from Bommasamudram to Chittoor. Then, Jayaseelan

boarded the train No.166 MEMU Passenger. The deceased had accidentally

fallen down from the running train and sustained grievous injuries. The Station

House Officer of RPS Chittoor requested the Tahsildar to refer the matter as

"accidental death". Ex.A6 is the copy of the household card of the applicants,

which would disclose that the applicants were the family members of the

deceased Jayaseelan.

14. Ex.R1 is the DRM report dated 03.12.2009. It would disclose that as per

the enquiry report of IPF/CTO, on 03.07.2008 Sri G.Ellaiah, I.T.No.475, Gang

No.9 noticed and reported to Deputy Station Superintendent, Ramapuram about

male dead body aged 40 years found lying in between the track at Kilometer

No.12/8-9 between Ramapuram - Katpadi Railway Stations, who in turn gave a

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

message to GRP/CTO through Deputy Station Superintendent / CTO. On

receipt of the message, Sri Bala Gopala Reddy, SI/GRP/CTO, Sri T. Anandaiah,

ASI/RPF/CTO and Sri N.Venkatamuni, GRP/HC.227/CTO attended the spot,

conducted inquest and the deceased was identified as Jayaseelan through the

book available with the deceased. The deceased was not in possession of any

ticket of any travelling authority. In this connection, the GRP/CTO registered a

case in Crime No.36 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The enquiries revealed

that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was travelling by standing

near the doorways of coach, which was not intended for travelling by the

passengers, which was an offence under Section 156 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Due to oscillation of the running train, he might have lost his balance and fallen

down from the running train and died due to his negligence. Hence, as per the

provisions contained in clause "c" of the Railways Act, 124-A, "no

compensation can be payable by the Railway Administration, if the passenger

suffers death or suffers injuries due to his own criminal act". As such, the

Railway Administration was not responsible for compensation and there was no

liability on the part of the Railways. The enquiry report of IPF/CTO dated

01.11.2009 was accepted by DRM, Guntakal. The said DRM report marked

under Ex.R1 was relied by the Tribunal to consider that the deceased was not a

bonafide passenger and denied compensation to the applicants.

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

15. As per the facts and circumstances of the case and to consider whether

the appellants / applicants are entitled to any compensation or not, it is to be

seen whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not and whether there is

any untoward incident.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi 7 , on

considering various judgments rendered by different High Courts and by it

earlier, held that:

17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.

17. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the initial burden would lie upon

the claimants to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not and the

same could be discharged by filing an affidavit with relevant facts and the

2018 ACJ 1441

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

burden would then shift upon the Railways. In the present case, the applicants

filed the affidavit of applicant No.1, the wife of the deceased stating all the

relevant facts and placed reliance upon the documents marked under Exs.A2

and A5. These are the same documents, which were also taken into

consideration by the DRM while filing his report, marked under Ex.R1.. But

the Railways failed to discharge the burden, which was shifted on them by

examining any witness on their behalf to show that the deceased had not

travelled in train No.166 MEMU Passenger. The incident was alleged to have

occurred when the train was passing between Katpadi-Ramapuram Railway

Stations. When a specific train No. was given, the Railways ought to have

examined the TTE, Guard, Driver or any other Railway Officials to show that

the deceased had not travelled with a valid journey ticket or fallen from the said

train.

18. This Court in A.Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India,

Secunderabad (cited supra) held that when the Railway Claims Tribunal had

relied upon the DRM report, for the reasons best known to the Railways, none

of its officers including the author of the DRM report were examined before the

Tribunal. The evidence of AW.2 clearly disclosed that he accompanied the

deceased to Railway Station, where, the deceased purchased II Class journey

ticket and in his presence, the deceased boarded the train. As such, had not

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

accepted the theory of suicide and held that the claimants were entitled to

compensation.

19. The judgment of the Kerala High Court in Union of India v. A.Geetha

and Others 8 was also extracted in the above case, wherein it was observed that:

"The lady being a passenger not in accompaniment with any of the original applicants, it is difficult for the latter to state specifically about the incident. The attending circumstances being so, the authorities of the Railway, being in reachable space to the place of incident, are the appropriate persons.k to conduct an enquiry and to get convinced themselves about the untoward incident rather than the original applicants, who were in a remote place at the relevant time. The authorities of the railway cannot take advantage of their inaction to conduct an enquiry and the incapacity of the original applicants to place on record evidence supporting their claim."

20. In the present case also, the applicants who were at a remote place to the

place of incident could not say as to how the incident occurred and it was the

Railways, who could conduct an enquiry into the incident and could state the

reason for the cause of death of the deceased. As per the inquest report which

was earliest in point of time, the deceased while travelling in some un-known

train, accidentally slipped and fallen down between Katpadi-Ramapuram

2018 ACJ 941

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

Railway Stations. As per the final report filed by the RPS, Chittoor, basing on

the statement of an eye-witness recorded by them, it was held that the deceased

boarded Train No.166 MEMU Passenger Train.

21. The composite High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Shaik

Mahboob Basha and others v. Union of India (cited supra) in similar

circumstances, wherein a passenger standing near door of express train fell

down due to sudden jerk and died and the claimants' witness deposed that the

deceased purchased a ticket for the journey and boarded the express train in his

presence. The defence of Railways was that no valid ticket was found from the

person of the deceased and the body was recovered at Tettu Railway Station,

where there was no scheduled stoppage of express train and the Tribunal

disbelieved the witness and dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased

was not a bonafide passenger as no valid ticket was found, it was held that

presumption that generally every passenger holds a journey ticket unless the

contrary is proved is applicable. Standing at open door of the compartment of a

running train may be a negligent or rash act, but it is not a criminal act.

22. The composite High Court further observed that:

8.6. As rightly contended it is undisputed that a person will not be permitted even onto the platform without a platform ticket and that a person will not be permitted to travel in a train without a valid ticket with him and that a duty is

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

enjoined upon the officers of the Railways to regulate the entry of passengers to the platform or into the railway station and into the compartments of trains and that the Railways have sufficient mechanism and manpower to regulate the same. Therefore, it can be presumed that every person entering onto the platform holds a valid platform ticket until the contrary is proved. Similarly it can also be presumed that every person travelling in a train possesses a valid ticket. In support of the view that such a presumption can be drawn, the learned Counsel for the applicants had placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Union Of India v. P.K Parameswaran Pillai [2013 ACJ 635 (Kerala)].

The facts of the reported case show that a mother claimed compensation on account of her son's death in an untoward incident namely a railway accident and that at that time she was not accompanying her son and that her testimony was to the effect that he was travelling in connection with his business; and that therefore, the Court took the view that in the common course of human conduct she would never have had any reason to presume or believe that he would travel without a valid ticket.

Going by the facts of the case, it was further presumed that the deceased would have travelled with a ticket and not without a ticket. In the said decision, the High Court of Kerala referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

India[2009 ACJ 2444 SC)]; the decision of the Kerala High Court in Joji C. John (Claimant) v. Union Of India [2003 ACJ 52 (Kerala)] and that of this Court in Union of India v. B. Koddekar [2003 ACJ 1286(AP)], wherein it was categorically laid down that among other things the fact that the passenger had purchased a ticket and is a bona fide passenger is always to be presumed unless it is shown to be otherwise.

As per the ratio in the decisions, such presumptions always swing in favor of the injured; and, if unfortunately the injured dies, such presumptions shall aid those entitled to compensation in that regard. There is no need to multiply decisions on this settled legal position. Having regard to the facts and the legal position obtaining it can safely be presumed and accepted that the deceased held a ticket and that the ticket was lost at the time of the incident.

Viewed thus, this Court holds that the deceased is a bona fide passenger and that the defence based on assumptions that he was not holding a ticket cannot be countenanced. The point is accordingly answered.

23. In Jameela and Others v. Union of India (cited supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court also held that:

9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favor."

24. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Suman Sharma v. Union of

India (cited supra) also held that:

"14. In such circumstances, ticketless travel is an illegal act and therefore, it was further for the Railway authorities to check and detect any unauthorized person travelling without an authorized ticket and a presumption would arise in favour of the appellant that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket from Ambala to Kalka and had covered majority of the distance before he fell from the train when it had crossed the Chandimandir Railway Station around 10 pm. The onus, thus, should have been shifted upon the Railways, to prove that he was a trespasser, as such and was travelling without a ticket and not a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition of the claimant and

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

the impugned order is, accordingly, not liable to be sustained."

25. In the present case also, the deceased boarded the train at

Bommasamudram Railway Station to go to Chittoor and his body was found on

the way between Katpadi and Ramapuram Railway Stations. Thus, the

deceased had covered a part of the journey from Bommasamudram till the place

where his dead body was found. He had entered the platform of

Bommasamudram Railway Station and travelled in the train to some extent. As

such, it could be presumed that the deceased purchased a ticket and travelled

with that ticket and he was a bonafide passenger, which presumption the

respondent - Railways failed to rebut. The facts and circumstances of the case

also would disclose that the dead body of the deceased was dragged up to 18

sleepers and the clothes of the deceased were found to be torn. As such, there is

every chance of the journey ticket, which could be placed in the clothes might

be lost on the way. As such, the deceased shall be considered as a bonafide

passenger.

26. While dealing with the aspect as to whether the deceased had died in an

untoward incident, viz. an accidental fall from the running train, it was

necessary to refer to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It reads as

follows:

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

Section 124-A of the Act 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 dependant of a passenger who has been injured or the dependant 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, 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.

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

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 a victim of an untoward incident."

27. From a reading of the above provision, it is obvious that the liability to

pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the

part of the Railway Administration. If any bona fide passenger having a ticket,

as defined under Clause (29) of Section 2 of the Act dies in an untoward

accident, it is incumbent upon the Railways to pay the compensation to the

victims without putting up any dispute, provided the death of the deceased does

not fall within any of the five Exceptions (a) to (e), as indicated above.

28. Though the DRM report concluded that it was a case falling under clause

"c" of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and that the deceased suffered

injuries due to his own criminal act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jameela Case

(cited supra) clearly stated that falling from a train due to his own negligence

would not attract clause "c" of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act,

1989.

29. The composite High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Shaik

Mahboob Basha and Others v. Union of India (cited supra), also held that:

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

"Be it noted that a criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants, when once the Railways issues tickets to passengers to board trains, it is for the Railways to take steps and appropriate measures to provide accommodation in the compartments of trains to all the passengers holding valid tickets and take security measures to close the doors before the trains move from the platforms and open on arrival of the train on the platforms.

                  The    Railways     having    issued   tickets    to
                  passengers    to   board     trains,   which     are

overcrowded, cannot put the lives of the citizens to risk and shirk its responsibility with regard to safety and security of the passengers and then contend that it is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased is on account of self-inflicted injury or his own criminal act. As a result, it must be held that the falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental."

30. As all these aspects are considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the

High Courts in the above cited cases, this Court on considering the said

principles hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death had

Dr.GRR, J cma_702_2017

occurred in an untoward incident i.e. an accidental fall from the running train.

As such, the appellants / applicants are entitled to claim compensation.

31. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal

in O.A.A.No.121 of 2009 dated 26.12.2016 and the applicants are awarded

compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of

accident till its realization.

32. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any