THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 353 of 2009 JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal has been preferred by the railways challenging the order dated 11.12.2008 in O.A.A. No.312 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the claimants was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with a direction to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the said order, and in the event of failure to deposit so, it was directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment. 2. The claimants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Nanda Kishore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is husband of first claimant and father of other claimants, in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train on 23.6.2006 at KM 372/8-10 near Warangal Railway Station while travelling from Lucknow to Coimbatore with ticket bearing No.41383997. 3. The railways filed its written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stating that the death of the deceased was caused due to his own criminal act of sitting near the door, which is a self-inflicted injury and that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. 4. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the railways. 5. The learned counsel for the railways contended that the death of the deceased has not been established by the claimants by producing necessary evidence, and that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he was travelling in the train sitting near the door, and that the claimants failed to file post- mortem examination report into the court, and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that since death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not denied or disputed, non-filing of the postmortem examination report is inconsequential; that under the Railways Act, 1989, defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 8. Though the learned counsel for railways stated that death of the deceased has not been established by the claimants, in the written statement filed by the railways, it is clearly stated that the deceased died in an untoward incident due to his own negligence as he was sitting at the foot board of the compartment. Further more, the Divisional Railway Manager of Railways, after making enquiry, filed a report, which is marked as Ex.R1, which clearly shows that the deceased had fallen from the running train, and so, the death of the deceased is in an untoward incident. Further more, Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Unless the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act, the claim application cannot be dismissed. Negligence on the part of the deceased is not a ground for dismissing the claim application under Section 124A of the Act. In view of the fact that the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident, the claimants are entitled to compensation. With regard to second aspect i.e. whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train or not, the claimants produced a ticket which shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the passenger train. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 18.8.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 353 of 2009 18.8.2011