IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.84 of 2009 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And B.Venkata Sai Babu and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 19.09.2008, in O.A.A.No.157 of 2005 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 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 of B.Padmavathi (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 12.05.2005 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the husband and children of the deceased; that on 12.05.2005, the deceased along with her sister-in-law while travelling from Secunderabad to Guntur by train No.7006 Express, accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train at Nadikudi Railway Station, sustained severe injuries and died; that they also filed the original journey ticket bearing No.37335590 of the deceased. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stating that as per their enquiries, on 12.05.2005, at about 10.05 hours, one lady passenger got down from the train for drinking water and when the train was in moving condition, she tried to enter into the compartment and though the Guard of the train warned her not to board the running train, she continued her efforts to board, and by seeing this, the Guard went inside brake van and applied vaccum and stopped the train, but by that time, she fell down in between platform and the train, and she received injuries on her forehead, and she was brought by the same train to Guntur for better medical treatment; that the incident happened due to negligent and careless act of the deceased in boarding the moving train for which, the respondent railways is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7006 Express travelling from Secunderabad to Guntur on 12.05.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-5. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material 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, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the deceased was negligent in boarding the train resulting in her death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and she was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. 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. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Ex.A-1 is the original ticket filed by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 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 it 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 mentioned in the said proviso. 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 19th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.84 of 2009 Date:19.09.2011 AMD