THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 88 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 19-09-2008 in O.A.A.No.371 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 02-11-2003, the deceased-Gunja Akkamma purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.471 at Nidadavolu to go to Visakhapatnam and soon after it moved, she accidentally slipped and fell from the running train, as a result, she sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants who are the husband and the children of the deceased filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the fall of the deceased was on account of her own negligence and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were 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.471 passenger traveling from Nidadavolu to Visakhapatnam on 02-11-2003? 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. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application, awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 30 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of that order till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Union of India has filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants and perused the record. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is legal and proper? 8. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the compensation in view of the negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death is not available to the railway administration under the Act and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to the severe injuries sustained in the accidental fall and died. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the defence of the negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death is not available to the Railway administration under Section 124A of the Act, as the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the present case falls under any one of those exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 13. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr