IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 76 OF 2011 Between : The Union of India …APPELLANT A N D H.Suryanarayana Murthy and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 76 of 2011 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2010 in O.A.A.No.403 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of H.Venkatesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the said amount within two months with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till its realization. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 20.11.2007, the deceased and his brother went to Tadepalligudem railway station and purchased a journey ticket bearing No.57868880 to travel from Tadepalligudem to Godavari for them and boarded train No.425 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam passenger in general compartment. The said general compartment was with full of passengers and there was heavy rush. When the train started and was leaving the platform at Tadepalligudem railway station, the deceased had suddenly slipped and fell down from the running train due to jerks of the said train and also due rush of passengers and as a result, his both legs were cut and separated under the wheels of the train and also sustained severe multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the incident, staff of the railways attended the deceased, took his identity, journey ticket and other relevant particulars and shifted him to Government General Hospital, Tadepalligudem for immediate and necessary treatment. As per Doctor advice, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry, but on the way, the deceased succumbed to injuries and the same was declared by concerned duty Doctor, Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the claim falls under one of the exceptions in proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); namely self inflicted injury, that as per the enquiries made by the railways, the deceased tried to board a running train from off side, slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained injuries and subsequently died; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the alleged incident, if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and such acts disentitle the applicants from claiming compensation for such self inflicted injuries due to his own criminal act and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the 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?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and the applicants are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, Railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent contended that the untoward incident had happened due to negligence of the deceased; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and so, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’; that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he along with the deceased went to Tadepalligudem railway station and he purchased a combined journey ticket bearing No.57868880 for them and boarded train No.425 Vijayawada –Visakhapatnam; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these 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 that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Police after registering the case held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries, shock and haemorrhage. The applicants produced Ex.A.1-original ticket, which would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Ex.A.1 is not shown to be invalid or incorrect ticket. 12. It is the case of the Railway Administration that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration since Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. At best it amounts to negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding a running train from off side. It is not the case of the railway administration that the deceased with a view to commit suicide or under intoxication condition, tried to board a running train. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 10, 2011 YVL