THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A No. 1051 OF 2008 Date: 05-09-2011 Between Union of India, rep., by the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad …..Appellant And D.R. Manjula Devi and four others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A No. 1051 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 08-03-2006 passed in O.A.A No. 142 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one B. Tirumala Rayudu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the C.M.A may be stated as under: Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the wife and children; respondent No.4 is the mother and respondent No.5 is the brother of the deceased. They filed the said O.A.A under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- stating that on 22-02- 2002 the deceased met with train accident and died due to fall from train No.287 passenger at Ananthapur Railway Station. 3. The appellant – railways have resisted the claim made in the application by way of filing a written statement denying the incident as accident fall. However, it was admitted that as per the train guard’s version while the train was in motion, one male person tried to board into bogie No.SCCNY 2613 and fell down. The train was stopped. According to the appellant – railways, the act of commission or omission is nothing but self inflected injury and as such, the claim is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of accident? 2) Whether the deceased died of injuries sustained in an untoward incident, if so, what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to? 5. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW 1 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, none was examined, but Ex.R-1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and met his death on account of an untoward event and, therefore, the applicants are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and accordingly allowed the O.A.A. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – railways contended that the incident had occurred when the deceased was trying to board the running train and, therefore, for the lapses on the part of the deceased, the applicants cannot derive any benefit of compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents – applicants contended that since the deceased died while trying to board the train, it comes within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123 (c) (1) (ii) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation to the applicants and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. 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 applicants is that an untoward incident had 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. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If the two requirements are proved, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. There is no dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger having a valid season ticket to travel in a passenger train. There is also no dispute that while he was trying to board the train, he fell down. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration unless its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Admittedly, the present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as mentioned in that proviso. Assuming for a moment that the deceased tried to board the train, it cannot be said that there was negligence on his part. There cannot be any dispute that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The railway administration failed to establish that the act of the deceased falls under any one of the defences available to it under law. Under these circumstances, legal heirs of the deceased cannot be denied the compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J 05-09-2011 ks