IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.447 of 2008 Between: Union of India rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT And Eruva Venkaiah and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.447 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 28.01.2008 in O.A.A.No.284 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 with interest @9% 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: Applicant No.1 is the father, Applicant No.2 is mother and Applicant No.3 is unmarried sister of Eruva Ravi, S/o.Eruva Venkaiah (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). They filed the claim under Sec.16 of the RCT Act, 1987 r/w.Sec.124A of Railways Act to grant compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 4. The applicants’ version is that on 10.07.2002 the deceased along with four others while traveling from Ramagundam to Mancherial by train No.321 passenger fell down accidentally from the running train near Peddampet Railway station and died on the spot of severe injuries sustained by him. 5. The respondent Railways in their reply denied the averments made in the application and submitted that inquiries with SS/PPZ reveal that one male dead body aged about 23 years was lying at kMT R 269/21-23 station near up loop line. Guard of 321 passenger emphatically denies that unusual or untoward incident occurred by 321 passenger between Kazipet-Balharsha section and as per record the train arrived Peddampet at 07.25 hrs. and departed at 07.26 hrs. No.ACP to train and he did not notice any untoward incident of accidental fall from 321 passenger, no person or passenger informed of any such occurrence and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim application. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Eruva RAvi? 2. Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of train No.321 passenger, traveling from Ramagundam to Mancherial on 10.07.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Peddampet railway station? 4. To what relief? 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, the passenger guard was examined as RW 1 and got marked Ex.R1. 8. On an analysis of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the Claim application and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants towards compensation and directed the appellant-Railways to deposit the said amount together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, the Railways preferred this appeal. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct and valid? 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing near the door in a running train, and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 11. 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. 12. 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 applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as mentioned in proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. 13. As per Ex.A2 inquest report, investigating officer in the presence of the panchayatdars seized the original ticket from the pocket of the deceased and in Col.No.4 of the inquest report, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was last seen alive by his other co- passengers 2 to 5 at 7.45 hrs on the fateful day. In Col.7 of Ex.A2 inquest report, it was also mentioned that a railway journey ticket bearing No.20189139 for five members to travel in a passenger train from Ramagundam to Mancherial dated 10.07.2002 time at 7.29 hours has been purchased. Therefore, it is clear from the recitals in Ex.A.2 that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The ticket was not denied or disputed by the respondent-railways. The only ground taken by the railways that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing near the door in a running train, thereby exposing himself to danger, 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. Even there is some negligence on the part of the deceased in standing near the door, it cannot be a ground to deny the 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. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 16.09.2011 Gk