IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.326 of 2008. Date:16.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Sonu Bhosle. .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.326 of 2008. JUDGMENT:- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 28.01.2008, in O.A.A.No.150 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 appellant/applicant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death his mother of Smt Nanda Bai (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident which took place on 27.4.2002, was allowed. 2. The applicant filed the O.A.A. stating that on 27.4.2002, the minor applicant Sonu while travelling along with his mother Nanda Bai from Begumpet to Bhalki by train No.349 Kachiguda-Aurangabad passenger train, she accidentally fell down at Lingampally railway station resulting in her death due to multiple injuries on the way to the private hospital. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that the enquiries revealed that after the train started at Lingampalli, shoutings of some passengers were heard and the deceased was shifted to plat form with the assistance of passengers and advised Station Supdt., Lingampalli. The applicant did not mention with regard to ticket number and copy of the ticket is not furnished and in the circumstances it is not a case of accidental fall from the train and hence the application is not maintainable. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicant is sole the dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether on 27.4.2002 the deceased Smt Nandabai was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c ) of the Railways Act. 4. Relief and Cost? 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, allowed the application of the applicant. Challenging the same, the railway has filed this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is negligence on the part of the deceased who was carrying a boy in trying to board the running train and therefore for the lapses committed by the deceased, the legal heir of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation and hence he prays to set aside the same. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application filed by the applicant and he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions 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 passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger train. It is also not in dispute that the deceased is having a valid ticket for travelling in a passenger train. 11. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the claimant shows that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under any one of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under any one of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicants have not filed the dependents certificates issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to permit the applicants to receive the compensation amount only after filing of the dependency certificates issued by the competent authority. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 16th September, 2011 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.326 of 2008 Date:16.09.2011 Gk.