IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1249 OF 2005 Date:21.09.2011 Between:- Goli Bhemamma @ Bheemakka and others. ...Appellants And Union of India. ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1249 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed by the appellants/applicants against the order, dated 18.08.2005, in O.A.A.No.188 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of D.Rajaiah @ Rajanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the applicants, and respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, 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 O.A.A. stating that the deceased boarded train No.7233 Secunderabad-Sirpurkagaznagar Bhagyanagar Fast Passenger in general compartment in order to go from Kazipet to Ravindra Khani by purchasing two passenger train tickets. While he was travelling in the passenger train, he got down at Ramagundam Railway Station and while trying to get into the train, he lost the control, fell down from the running train due to jerk and sustained severe injuries. The applicants filed original tickets. 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 deceased tried to catch the running train, due to which the incident had occurred and hence, it is not an accidental fall or an untoward incident; that the Guard of the train heard shouting of person in the platform followed by alarm chain pulling due to which the train stopped and he was informed that a male person in a bid to catch the ongoing train, fell down; that the alleged incident had taken place on account of attempting to get into the ongoing train in negligent manner, which does not attract the provisions of untoward incident and therefore, the railways are not liable to pay any compensation and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicant is dependent of the deceased D.Rajaiah @ Rajanna? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7233 Secunderabad-Sirpurkagaznagar Express travelling from Kazipet to Ravindrakhani? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Ramagundam railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that in view of unambiguous conclusions drawn in the Final report, it has to be held that the death of the deceased is due to his own negligence and rash conduct of attempting to catch the running train. Challenging the same, the applicants filed the present appeal. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, correct and legal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that he died in an untoward incident; that on the ground of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death, the claim application was dismissed; that Under Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’, the applicants are entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways opposed the same on the ground that the deceased tried to get into the moving train; that due to negligence on the part of the deceased, the incident had taken place and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. 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 the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers No.7233 from Secunderabad to Sirpurkagaznagar Bhagyanagar Fast Passenger. While the deceased was travelling in the train, he got down at Ramagundam Railway Station and while trying to get into the train, accidentally slipped and fell down due to jerk of the train. Ex.A.6- is the Final report, which would go to show that the deceased tried to get into the running train, as such there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. Admittedly, the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel from Kazipet to Ravindra Khani. Ex.A-1 is a valid journey ticket for the deceased to travel in a passenger train. So, when two requirements are satisfied under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the applicants are entitled to compensation. 13. Defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration in view of the fact that under Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Whether there is fault or not, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. If the railway administration wanted to absolve its liability, it has to show that its case falls under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Admittedly, 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 applicants are entitled to compensation. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.08.2005 in O.A.A.No.188 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of this Award till realization. Out of the same, appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and appellant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 YVL