IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1166 of 2008 Date: 14.09.2011 Between: Union of India .....Petitioner AND Bogila Amala ....Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1166 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 17.10.2005, in O.A.A.No.290 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Sri G. Madhavarao Patnaik and Smt G. Anasuyamma, in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed by the Tribunal. The applicants filed the claim application stating that the deceased while travelling from Rayagada to Parvathipuram on 6.8.2001 by train No.DMU 237 passenger and alighting at Parvathipuram R.S., both her parents slipped and fell down by which the train ran over them causing injuries with which her father succumbed to it on the spot and that her mother undergoing treatment in Government hospital died on the next day. 3. The respondent railways administration filed its written statement while denying the averments made in the application stated that the applicants put to strict proof to establish that her parents were bonafide passengers and that the accident was due to an untoward incident. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased G. Madhava Rao Patnaik? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.237 passenger travelling from Rayagada to Parvathipuram on 6.8.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Parvathipuram Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the railways 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The learned counsel for the appellant(railways) contends that as there was negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled for compensation. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended that the defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and hence prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. 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 with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The deceased fell down from the train while they were getting down from the train and sustained injuries and consequently died. It is not the case of the appellant that the deceased were not having valid tickets to travel in a passenger in train. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for compensation. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in their death is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the provisions. There are no merits in the appeal. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date:14.09.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1166 of 2008 Date: 14.09.2011 Gk.