IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.265 of 2009. Date:11.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Patchaiappan and another. .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 24.12.2008, in O.A.A.No.358 of 2005 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 read with Section 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 P.Siva Kumar (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 06.10.2005 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: Respondents/applicants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was employed at Ankapalli and on 06.10.2005 morning, with a view to go to Ankapalli from Tiruchirapally, purchased a journey ticket bearing No.509 9909 (UTS 3T3 6080 AO) II Class Super Fast Ticket and boarded Pallavan Express. The said train reached Chennai railway station on 06.10.2005 where he got down and had been to his aunt’s house. Both of them came to the Chennai railway station at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day and the deceased boarded train No.6004 Chennai-Howrah Mail to continue his journey to Ankapalli. When the said train was passing between Nellore and Padugupadu Railway Stations at Km 175/20-22 posts on down line track at about 1.00 a.m. of 07.10.2005, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train under Pennar bridge in the river, sustained serious injuries and died instantaneously. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments made in the application and stated that the incident does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Act. The applicants are put to strict proof that the deceased has fallen from 6004 Express and that he was a bona fide passenger of the said train. Even as per the findings of the inquest report, on the night of 6/7.01.2005, the deceased, while travelling in an unknown train, sat at the door step and when the train was passing on the river bridge, he lost balance and fell down, as a result of which, the act of the deceased in sitting at the door is a criminal act and it exonerates them from the liability of payment of compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train 6004 Express, travelling from Chennai to Ankapalli on 06.10.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who was traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket, and accidentally fell down from the train and sustained injuries and died, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that it is not a case of untoward incident whereunder the deceased died and the evidence on record would clearly go to show that the deceased died due to his own negligence and that Ex.A-4-ticket is not a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train and hence, he prays to set aside the Award. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased had fallen from the running train, sustained injuries and died; that he was travelling with a valid ticket-Ex.A-4; that there is no rebuttable evidence to show that Ex.A-4 is not a genuine ticket and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 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 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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to Section 124- A of the Act. 11. With regard to the untoward incident, it is clear that the deceased might have been fallen from the running train on the intervening night of 6/7.10.2005 while the train was passing over the Pennar bridge. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and found number of injuries, which suggests that the deceased might have fallen from the running train. The police also filed a final report stating that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Ex.R-2, Divisional Railway Manager’s report, would go to show that the deceased was sitting on the foot board and due to his negligence, he might have fallen from the running train. Negligence on the part of the deceased by himself is not a ground or defence available to Railways to deny the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. 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 anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the evidence on record would clearly go to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train. 12. With regard to bona fide passenger, the applicants produced Ex.A-4 ticket, which would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. If the railway administration is doubting the correctness or otherwise of the ticket, they should have adduced some evidence to show that Ex.A-4 is not a valid or genuine ticket. No such rebuttal evidence is adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, from Ex.A-4, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.265 of 2009. Date:11.08.2011 AMD