IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1103 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D M.Bujjamma @Vimalamma …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1103 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 03.05.2006 in O.A.A.No.97 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the respondent/applicant for compensation consequent on the death of M.Krishna Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that on 03.03.2001 the deceased in order to go from Mahaboobnagar to Secunderabad boarded train No.7562 by purchasing ticket bearing No.08576508. There was heavy rush in the said passenger train as another train No.525/526 was cancelled. When train No.571/572 Mahaboobnagar to Secunderabad arrived on the platform, while the deceased was boarding the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down under the wheels of the train. The train was stopped after moving for some distance and due to the injuries the deceased died. Hence, the claim application. 4. The appellant/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per report of the Station Master, Mahaboobnagar which was sent to the SI GRP and in the inquest report when train No.571 was slowly coming on the platform, the deceased attempted to board the running train, he slipped and ran over the wheels of the train; that the act or omission amounts to negligent or criminal act which disentitles from payment of any compensation and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicant is the dependant of the deceased M.Krishna Reddy? 2. Whether the deceased is a bonafide passenger of trainNo.571 or 572 passenger trevelling from Mahboobnagar to Secunderabad on 03.03.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Mahboobnagar Railway Station before halting the train? 4. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/railways. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the deceased was having a valid ticket, but he had chosen to board the wrong train and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended that as the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train; that as the two requirements under Section 124 A of the Act, are established the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to in Section 124 A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. When these two requirements are established, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that their case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. Section 124A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The deceased tried to board the wrong train because he was illiterate. That cannot be a ground to deny the compensation to the dependents of the deceased. May be on the wrong advice given by the passengers in the platform, the deceased tried to board some other train for which, he had not taken valid ticket. It is not the case of the railway administration that the deceased intentionally tried to board the some other train to go some other destination. Intentionally the deceased would not have tried to board the train if it does not go to the place of his destination. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 YVL