Union of India v. Shan S

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **MFA.No. 26 of 2015 () ----------------------** **O.A.(llu)/ERS/2013/0067 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:** **-----------------------** **UNION OF INDIA** **REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHEN RAILWAY, CHEENAI -3.** **BY ADVS.SMT.REZIYA.P.A.,SC, RAILWAYS SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE, SC, RAILWAYS** **RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT: ------------------------** **SHAN S** **S/O. SALIM, ROYAL COTTAGE, KIZHAYATTINKUZHI, NEHRU COLLEGE, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 010.** **THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OKB** “CR” ## K.HARILAL & A.M.BABU, JJ. --------------------------M.F.A. No.26 of 2015 --------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of December, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## **Harilal, J.** Union of India filed this appeal challenging the judgment granting an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation to the respondent in O.A. (llu)/ERS/2013/0067. The aforesaid application was filed by the respondent under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation from the appellant herein for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged untoward incident. (The parties are referred to as in the impugned judgment). 2. According to the applicant, on 12.6.2013, he purchased a journey ticket from Kazhakkuttam railway station and boarded Thiruvananthapuram-Kollam MFA.26/15 **:2:** passenger train. When the train reached Kollam railway station platform, while alighting from the train, he accidentally fell down from the train due to jerk and sustained serious injuries, which resulted in amputation of both legs. According to the applicant, the accident was an untoward incident contemplated under section 123C of the Railways Act. 3. The respondent resisted the claim for compensation and denied the allegation that the applicant had fallen down from the train at Quilon railway station due to jerking. According to the respondent the enquiries revealed that on 12.6.2013 the Guard of Train No.56308 of Quilon informed that at about 19.38 hours while entering into the Platform Road-3 of Quilon station, a male aged 30 years suddenly jumped into the platform and fell between the train and platform from GS-02403, 12[th] coach from the engine. Two coaches moved ahead and the train stopped. The applicant being a mature adult ought to have been known the danger of detraining from a moving train. But MFA.26/15 **:3:** he chose to do so. The reckless voluntary act of the applicant resulted in his fall and injury. Therefore the act of the applicant tantamounts to self-inflicted injury and thereby the respondent is not liable to compensate the applicant under section 124A of the Railways Act. 4. On the aforesaid rival contentions, the applicant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. The report of the DRM was marked as Ext.R1 and no oral evidence was adduced by the respondent. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred was one falling under section 124 of the untoward incident contemplated under section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and rejected the contention that the injury was a self-inflicted injury. The legality and correctness of the said finding are assailed in this appeal filed by the respondent. 5. It is not disputed that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and the accident occurred at Kollam railway station on platform No.3 when the applicant alighted from MFA.26/15 **:4:** train No.56308. It is the case of the applicant that he had fallen down due to the sudden jerk of the train. The respondent also admitted the sudden fall from the train. But, according to the respondent it was a self-inflicted injury falling under the exception to section 124A. 6. In the above context, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the injury sustained in a sudden fall, while boarding, or alighting from, the moving train can be deemed to be a self-inflicted injury. Self-inflicted injury means and intends causing an injury to himself. Therefore, the mens rea to cause injury to himself is sine qua non to constitute a self-inflicted injury and the said mental element must be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. So also, in order to constitute self-inflicted injury the victim must have been conscious of the possibility of the danger also at the moment when he commits the act. When a passenger is boarding, or alighting from, the moving train, the said act is the result of a sudden impulse struck his mind on the spur MFA.26/15 **:5:** of moment and he will not be conscious of the possibility of danger or consequence thereof at that moment, even if he is a prudent man. 7. Such accidents are recurring events, though everybody is conscious of the danger and consequences thereof before the accident. Had the passenger, who sustained injuries in such a sudden fall, from the moving train, been conscious of the risk or danger and consequences thereof at that moment, certainly, he would not have done the said act. It cannot be said that all the mental faculties of the human beings are always alert and working for all actions. Similarly, all decisions of human beings are not always prudent or sensible. Therefore, the injury sustained in the accident, which arose out of boarding the train or alighting from the train, cannot be deemed to be a self-inflicted injury. At the most, it may be a negligent or careless act from the part of the passenger. However, falling from the train is clearly accidental and there, the mental element to cause injury to himself is absent. So it will fall under clause (c) of section 123C of the Act; that is, an MFA.26/15 **:6:** accidental fall only. 8. The above view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in **Jameela and ors. v. Union of India [AIR 2010 SC 3705].** It was a case wherein the passenger fell down from a running train and the Supreme Court held that the fact that he was standing at the open doors of the compartment of the running train may be a negligent act or even a rash act. But it is certainly not a criminal act and a negligent passenger is also entitled to get compensation for the injury sustained in an untoward incident contemplated under section 124A of the Railways Act. 9. In the above analysis, the Tribunal is justified in finding that the accident which resulted in the loss of both legs of the applicant is an untoward incident falling under section 124A of the Railways Act. 10. Coming to the quantum of damages, it is not disputed that both legs of the applicant were amputated and thereby the injury is a scheduled injury vide item No.3 MFA.26/15 **:7:** of Part II to schedule framed under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents & Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 for which a sum of Rs.4 lakhs is prescribed as the amount of compensation. The nature of injury stands proved by Ext.A3 Discharge Summary and Ext.A4 Disability Certificate also. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in granting an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation to the applicant. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed accordingly. All pending interlocutory applications stand closed. Sd/- (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) Sd/- (A.M.BABU, JUDGE) okb. //True copy// P.A. to Judge