HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.745 of 2009 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: Union of India, Rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant and Inkollu Sandhyasri and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.745 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 19.3.2009, in O.A.A.No.283 of 2002 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 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 Trivikrama (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 22.10.2001, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife, children and father, respectively, of the deceased; that on 22.10.2001, the deceased came to Nellore Railway Station and purchased a journey ticket bearing No.33473715 between Nellore to Kalahasti and the deceased met G. Ramanujacharyulu there in the station and when they both were waiting on the platform at about 6.45 a.m., there was an announcement in the station that there is a special train arriving on platform No.3 and the said train will halt in all the stations wherever Krishna Express stops and hence they both boarded into the special train and when the special train is about to reach Kalahasti Railway Station and in anticipation of a stop at Kalahasti Railway Station, the deceased went near the door of the compartment with a view to get down, but surprisingly the said train did not stop at Kalahasti Railway Station and hence the deceased was forced to continue his journey upto Renigunta next halt station, that in the meantime when the said train was passing at KM No.65/16-17 posts the deceased due to the speed and jerks of the train accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, sustained serious injuries and died. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the applicants have nowhere mentioned the train number by which train the deceased was allegedly travelling Ex.Nellore to Kalahasti and further the alleged ticket No.33573715 said to be in possession of the deceased was valid between Nellore and Sri Kalahasti Stations, that the body of a male person alleged to be belonging to the deceased was found at KM No.65/16-17 between Kalahasti and Rachagunneri and submitted that the place of incident falls beyond Kalahasti station towards Rachagunneri and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of any train beyond Kalahasti Railway Station and that, therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Act, and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependants of the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Inkollu Trivikrama? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of unknown train carrying passengers on 22.10.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died is a victim of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and died at KM No.65/16-17 near Kalahasti Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence 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, the Railways filed this appeal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, that the alleged ticket said to be in possession of the deceased was valid between Nellore and Sri Kalahasti Stations, that there was negligence on the part of the deceased while getting down from a moving train resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives are not entitled to any compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. 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 train carrying passengers; that the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 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 claimants 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 the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train or the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. As per the evidence of A.W.2, both A.W.2 and the deceased stood in the queue and purchased tickets and the deceased told him that he purchased ticket upto Kalahasti and having come to know that there is no stop at Kalahasti the deceased wanted to proceed upto Renigunta and told him that he will pay the excess fare to the ticket collector for his journey between Kalahasti to Renigunta and since no TTE has come to his compartment, he is not in a position to pay the same. Further in column No.7 of Ex.A-2, the ticket number alleged to be purchased by the deceased was mentioned, which clearly shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers 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 as 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 provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, 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 22.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.745 of 2009 22.09.2011 (Msr)