THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.175 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 28.09.2010 in O.A.A No.549 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondent- applicant claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed in part. 2. The respondent-applicant filed the Original Application stating that on10.12.2006, he along with his co-worker went to Krishnarajapuram Railway Station, Bangalore, boarded Train No.7209 Seshadri Express with a combined journey ticket No.28251879 from Krishnarajapuram to Kuppam, slipped and fell down accidentally from the moving train due to the jerks of the train, as a result of which, wheel of the train ran over his left leg and subsequently, the leg was amputated below knee joint. 3. The Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and it does not come under the provisions of Sections 123 or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim application granting compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. 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 Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that due to the negligence of the respondent- applicant, the incident had happened and hence, the applicant is not entitled to any compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- applicant contended that Ex.A4 is the original journey ticket and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, is not available to the railways, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there must be an untoward incident and in that untoward incident, a person died or sustained injuries and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. It is not in dispute that the untoward incident had happened and the respondent-applicant sustained injuries in the said incident. It is also not in dispute that the respondent- applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with valid ticket. As the two requirements are proved, it is needless to observe that the respondent-applicant is entitled to compensation. Though it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways that there was negligence on the part of the respondent- applicant, still the Railway Administration cannot avoid payment of compensation to the respondent-applicant because the defence of negligence on the part of the injured is not available to the Railway Administration as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. It is not a case, where the case of Railway Administration falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent-applicant. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Dt:13.10.2011 kdl