THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2009 made in O.A.A.No.562 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity} filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 {“the Act” for brevity}, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the respondent herein in a train accident. 2. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under. The application is filed by Mohammed Showkath Ali, to seek compensation for injuries allegedly sustained by him in an untoward incident on 12.08.2005. The applicant stated that he purchased a ticket bearing No.68271510 for the journey from Secunderabad to Machilipatnam and boarded train No.7050 (Machilipatnam Express), but because of the push of passengers and jerks of the train he fell down on platform No.10 at Secunderabad Station and sustained fractures and injuries (fracture to the pelvis, commuted fracture both pelvic multiple injuries all over the body). The applicant claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. 3. The Railways resisted the claim in the Written statement primarily on the ground that the applicant might have tried to get into the train as it was moving to the platform for placement, and thereby it amounted to self-inflicted injury, and also on ground that there was no ticket mentioned in the records of the SS or the GRP. The applicant was also put to proof regarding the averments in the application. 4. The issues framed by the Claims Tribunal on 29.09.2006 were: (1) Whether the injured was a bona fide passenger? (2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? (3) Whether he was entitled to claim Rs.2 lakhs in compensation? (4) To what relief. 5. On behalf of the applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined but no document was marked. 6. Considering the evidence and material on record, the Tribunal, vide impugned order granted a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident had taken place due to the negligence of the injured and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation for his own negligence. 9. For the purpose of compensation, as per proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied; (1) A person is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; and (2) He sustained injuries in an untoward incident. With regard to the first requirement, it is not in dispute that the injured was a bona fide passenger. He produced Ex.A4-original ticket and the same is not shown as invalid ticket. 10. Coming to the second aspect, the only contention raised by the appellant is that due to the negligence of the injured only the incident had taken place and therefore, the injured is not entitled to compensation. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant need not prove negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicant shows that he accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the injured, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under any one of the defences available to the Railway Administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of Railway Administration falls under any one of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs. ____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 19th August 2011 RRB