IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.653 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And K.Madhava Reddy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.124 of 2004 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, 1987 read with Sections 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 K.Mallikarjun Reddy (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 02.04.2004, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the parents of the deceased; that the deceased was a worker in a sweet stall and resident of Nereducherla village, Kurnool District; that on 01.04.2004, the deceased boarded train No.7603 Kacheguda – Yeshwantpur Express at Kacheguda with ticket No.K 06298663 from Kacheguda to Dronachalam and at about 3.50 a.m. on 02.04.2004, while getting down from the train at Dronachalam Railway station, accidentally fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed the written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and as per their enquiries, a person aged about 30 years tried to get down on platform No.1 from 7603 Express while it was rolling into the station. The same is not an accidental fall from train but it is due to alighting from a moving train in a rash and negligent manner, which is a self inflicted injury, and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application. 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 train No.7063 Kachiguda – Yeshwantpur travelling from Kachiguda to Dronachalam on 02.04.2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. The appellant/Railways neither examined any witnesses nor any documents were marked on its behalf. 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 and died in an untoward incident, 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 there is negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order 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 requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 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 26th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.653 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 AMD