1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 of 2006 Union of India .. Appellant versus Smt.Girija Shambu Shetty .. Respondent ... Mr.A.N. Samant for the appellant Mr.G.J. Mohanrao for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 8th December 2008 P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 26th October 2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs.Four lakhs to the respondent. 2. Respondent is the mother and only heir of Ganesh Shambu Shetty (for short ’the deceased’). 3. The deceased fell down from a local train on 2 25th May 2001 near Malad station while travelling from Malad to Churchgate. He was taken to Bhagawati hospital by the police on memo issued by the Station Master, Malad which stated that the deceased had fallen from an unknown train. The deceased was declared dead on arrival at the Bhagawati hospital. Thereafter, the respondent who is the mother of the deceased filed a claim for compensation. By an order dated 26th October 2005, the Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded compensation of total compensation of Rs.Four lakhs. That judgement is impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the quantum of the compensation. He submitted that the respondent was not entitled to the compensation as (i) the deceased was a ticketless traveller and (ii) there was no proof of negligence on the part of the appellant. 5. The respondent has stated before the Tribunal that the deceased was regular commuter between Malad and Churchgate and was holding a season ticket with railway identity card However, these documents were lost in the incident. The Tribunal has believed this. The sworn evidence of the respondent that the deceased was a regular traveller 3 and held a season ticket with a railway identity card has been believed by the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to take a different view in the matter. In the circumstances, the finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding valid ticket is hereby confirmed. 6. In Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of section 124-A of the Railways Act imposes a strict liability or no fault liability in case of a loss suffered by a passenger in an "untoward incident/accident. No fault liability has been imposed by the statute on the railways. In view of this, the contention that the incident was not ’untoward incident’ and without proof of negligence, the appellant was not entitled to the compensation has to be rejected. 7. As stated earlier, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J)