IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.904 of 2006. Date:16.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Adepu Kamalamma and 3 others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.904 of 2006. JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 21.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.304 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Adepu Yesobu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident, was allowed. 2. The applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 03.10.2001 the deceased along with his wife (applicant No.1) started from Renta Chintala Railway Station to go to Guntur by purchasing tickets and boarded the train No.418 Macharla – Bhimavaram Passenger in general compartment. While the deceased had gone to wash basin in the compartment to wash his hands, and when the train was passing through Lingamguntla and Siripuram Railway Stations at 8.00 hours, the deceased slipped and fell down from the train, sustained several multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The Railways resisted the claim stating that on 03.10.2001 after Train No.418 passed through Lingamguntla Railway Station at 8.00 hours, some passengers and RPF shouted to stop the train stating that one person has fallen on off side of the train. The Guard gave instructions to the Driver on walky – talky, the train was backed and searched for the victim. The pockets of the deceased were searched for the identity of the deceased, which did not yield any result. He was not having ticket or other material with him. The Station Manager, Siripuram has received the dead body and he informed to all the concerned. Though the Station Manager, Siripuram made efforts to find out the identity of the deceased, no one had come forward to give him further any details including the wife said to have accompanied him as stated in the claim. There is every possibility of manipulation of the name of the applicant and planting of tickets and hence prayed to dismiss the claim. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Adepu Yesobu? 2. Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train No.418 Macherla-Bhimavaram passenger travelling from Rentachintala to Guntur on 3.10.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Lingamguntla and Siripuram railway station? 4. To what relief? 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, allowed the application of the applicants. Challenging the same, the railways filed this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of A.W.1 cannot be believed because she had not given any report to the police and that at the time of inquest she had not produced the ticket to show that herself and the deceased were travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket and that it is a case of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting the death of the deceased and hence the claimants are not entitled to any compensation and hence prays to allow the appeal by setting side the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that Ex.A.1 which is the journey ticket two in number are produced before the Tribunal to show that the deceased and his wife (A.W.1) were travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket and that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute, and upon proper consideration of the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal granted compensation and hence he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. There cannot be any dispute when initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident. A.W.1 who is none other than the wife of the deceased travelled along with the deceased purchasing two tickets. The tickets are not shown to be incorrect or in valid tickets. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.1 and Ex.A.1, it is clear that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train with a valid ticket. The Station Master has categorically stated that the Guard of the Train sent a message to stop the train as one of the passengers had fallen from the train. Therefore, the railway administration is not disputing about the death of the deceased. Police conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during the course of inquest, the police examined and recorded the statement of the first applicant wherein it is categorically stated that she accompanied the deceased in the passenger train. Therefore, the untoward incident has been established beyond preponderance of probability. Further more, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act, is in the nature of no fault liability. Therefore, the present case falls under one of the exceptions provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 16th September, 2011 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.904 of 2006 Date:16.09.2011 Gk.