THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No. 208 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in O.A.A.No.140 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 to 3 towards compensation for the death of one Rajesh Kumar Guptha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 15.02.2007 when the deceased was travelling in berth No.27 in Coach No.S-3 in train No.2707 to Bhopal, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the train at Hoshangabad railway station and died due to severe injuries. In this connection the respondents filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the appellants. 3 The appellants contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that it was admitted in the DRM report of the investigations carried out by Bhopal Division that the deceased fell down from the train but rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased fell down on account of his own negligence and this was a case of self–inflicted injury for which no compensation is payable. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependent(s) of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of 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? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and six documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the appellant, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the applicants as compensation and directed the first appellant to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within 3 months from the date of the order with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid and if so, whether the respondents are entitled to any interest? 8 The learned standing counsel for the Appellant contended that the deceased while getting down from the train sustained injuries. Therefore, it amounts to self inflicting of injuries and hence the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is a case of falling accidentally from the running train and therefore the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. 10 There cannot be any dispute that Section 124 A of the Railways Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of no fault liability. Proof of negligence is not necessary for claiming compensation. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. If the case of the Railway Administration falls in any one of the clauses mentioned in the said proviso, then only the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation. 11 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that this is a case of self inflicting injuries by the deceased. Having taken such a plea, it is for the appellant to establish that the deceased died due to the injuries inflicted by himself. The learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the observations made by the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased to the effect that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible by accidentally falling from the running train. There cannot be any dispute that if a person falls from a running train, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Cl.2 of Section 123 of the Act. There is evidence on record, which would clearly go to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train accidentally. It is not a case of causing injuries to the deceased by himself so as to come within the meaning of self-inflictment. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation to the claimants and that order needs no interference by this court. 12 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 08.08.2011 Kvsn