THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.750 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 04-06-2010 in O.A.A No.64 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her husband namely Bimal Baske (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to pay the said amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that the deceased along with other labourers started from Krishnapur, came to Malda on 10-10-2006, purchased Super fast journey ticket from Bangalore City, traveled in an express train and reached Sealdah in the morning of 11th. They moved to Howrah and boarded Howrah- Yeshwantpur express in different compartments, and when the train was passing between Yellakaru and Akkurthy Stations, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 1213 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), that the deceased a bona fide passenger who fell from an unknown train, but because it was a long journey, the deceased must have found a place to sit by the time of the accident and if he still fell down from the train, it could only be that he was responsible for his own death and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and hence, the Railways are not liable to pay compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the Railways, that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, that the Tribunal after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The key man noticed the dead body of the deceased by the side of the track. On coming to know about the same, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. Therefore, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 10. With regard to bona fide passenger, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Even the Railways did not deny or dispute about the same. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 11. The only contention of the learned standing counsel for Railways is that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 30-09-2011 Hsd