IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.538 of 2005 Between: The Union of India rep.by the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT And Gunturu Ramadevi and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.538 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 31.03.2005 in O.A.A.No.299 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents herein claiming compensation for the death of the deceased who died in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to pay compensation within two months from the date of order, failing which the railways are directed to pay interest @6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The applicants have filed the application under Sec.16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w.Sec.124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of the deceased alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental fall from the train. The Applicant No.1 is the widow of the deceased while Applicant No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased, whereas the Applicant No.3 and 4 are the father and mother of the deceased. 4. It is alleged that the deceased G.Venkateswarlu, aged about 24 years, was doing fruits business at Nidubrolu. He used to purchase fruits in wholesale from Bapatla or from Tenali. On the morning of 21.10.2002 the deceased Venkateswarlu along with one Sk.Meera had gone to Tenali for the purchase of fruits but as the rates were very high, they came back to Nidubrolu. At about 10.00 pm on the same day the deceased along with Sk.Meera came to Nidubrolu railway station, purchased a journey ticket for the deceased bearing No.19179975 and the deceased boarded Circar Express No.7244. When the train was passing in between Machavaram and Appikatla railway stations at km No.370/2-4, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 5. The respondent Railways has contested the application by filing its written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is contended inter alia that the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and further that the present case is not covered under the definition of untoward incident. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial; 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether on 21.10.2002 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Sec.123(c) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs? 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW 1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent Railways. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in death, as he was standing on the footboard, and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased; that when the untoward incident and the bona fide passenger are established, the claimants are entitled to compensation; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Sec.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 person died or sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent- railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Sec.124-A of the Act. 11. The railways found the dead body of the deceased lying in between two lines, and basing on the information from the Key man, the police registered the case and conducted inquest. During course of inquest, the police seized the Ticket found in the pocket of the deceased, which suggested that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, traveling in passenger train. Ex.A6 ticket produced by the applicants cannot be said to be invalid ticket, as it was not denied by the respondent-railways. The only ground taken by the railways that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and it is not a case of accidental fall from the train, and hence the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. No evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to show that due to negligence on the part of the deceased only the untoward incident had occurred. Therefore, the contention that there was negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted. Further more, no such defence is available to the railway administration. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided above, and so, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 08.09.2011 Dsr