THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.784 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.113 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one Pittala Karthik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 28.01.2005 while the deceased was travelling from Mancherial to Kazipet with ticket No.33078397 along with the second respondent/applicant accidentally fell down from 335 Nagapur Passenger train at Uppal Railway station and died on the spot. Hence, the respondents who are the parents of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the enquires revealed that on 28.01.2005 Train No.335 passenger arrived at Uppal Railway Station at 9.42 AM. At that time the platform was fully crowded due to Warangal CMM meeting on the same day and while leaving the Uppal Station, some passengers are still running to catch the moving train. By observing this, the Guard of the train stopped the train. In the meanwhile, some passengers were shouting and by hearing the same the Guard went to the spot and found one male passenger fallen under the wheels of Coach No.SC GS 84408. The Guard checked the injured for any personal belongings to know the identification of the injured, but nothing was found with him. The co-passengers replied for Guard’s enquiries that he was travelling from RECH, and got down for drinking water at Uppal and while boarding the running train he slipped and fell down between the coach and platform and injured severely and the same was appearing in the inquest and hence the accident does not come within the provisions of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.335 Nagpur Passenger travelling from Mancherial to Kazipet on 28.01.2005? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial one witness was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants. On the side of the respondent two witnesses were examined and one document was marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the copy of the order till payment. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid and whether the claimants are entitled to the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train and therefore for the lapses on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased cannot derive any benefit or advantage and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the Tribunal, basing on the evidence available on record, gave categorical finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. It is not in dispute that there was an untoward incident in which the deceased died. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. When these two requirements are proved or established the claimants are entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, they can show that the case falls under any one of the categories provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the categories mentioned in the said proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No doubt, Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is devoid of merit and wholly untenable. 11 In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 06.09.2011 Kvsn