THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 1028 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, East Coast Railways, Bhuvaneswar, is directed against the order dated 04-08-2009 in O.A.A.No.415 of 2007, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 03-09-2007, the deceased-Ch.Mohanamma purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.2603 at Ichapuram to go to Chennai and soon after it moved, she accidentally slipped and fell from the running train, as a result, she sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that after the incident happened, the railway official went to the spot and found no articles nor ticket near the dead body of the deceased and that the deceased was not holding the journey ticket and in the absence of journey ticket, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application, awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and thereafter, @ 9% per annum till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Union of India has filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants and perused the record. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is legal and proper? 8. The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that immediately after the incident, the Deputy Station Superintendent went to the place of incident and found no articles in and around the dead body, that there is a possibility of submitting the planted ticket, that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death and hence, prays to set aside the award. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the police seized the ticket during inquest and the ticket particulars were noted in the inquest report. Ex.A-4 is the attested copy of travel ticket and all these documents would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and, hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of 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 deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The deceased was found lying by the side of the railway track due to sudden accidental fall from the train. The police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was subjected to the postmortem examination and the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries all over the body. So the death of the deceased is not in a dispute. In the F.I.R., itself, the ticket number of the deceased is clearly mentioned and also the police while conducting inquest, seized the ticket and noted the number of the ticket in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. Therefore, from the recitals in Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-4, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. The contention that the ticket was a planted one subsequent to the accident cannot be accepted in the absence of pleading and evidence. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the defence of the negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death is not available to the Railway administration under Section 124A of the Act, as the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the present case falls under any one of those exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 13. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr