THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.987 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 21-08-2007 in O.A.A No.306 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Samadi Chandramma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of judgment, failing which it shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of judgment till realization. 2. Brief facts are that on 25-07-2002 the deceased along with her younger daughter boarded train No.408 Donakonda- Vijayawada passenger train to go to Vijayawada with general ticket. Due to sudden jerk of the train, the deceased slipped and fell down between platform and train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement admitting the occurrence of the incident and stated that as per the report of the Station Master/Narsaraopet R.S. and memo of Guard of train, a female aged about 50 years was found running towards the train to catch it, but fell down, run over and died. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no journey ticket was found with her and also it is not an accidental fall from the train. The death of the deceased was due to her own negligence in trying to board the running train, which is nothing but criminal act and therefore, it is a self inflicted injury coming under exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) for which, Railways are not liable to pay compensation. The applicants have produced the journey ticket though no ticket was found with the deceased at the time of incident. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. 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 traveling in a passenger train or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. 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 traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Ex.A2 is the copy of ticket. The ticket was not shown to be incorrect or invalid. 8. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways is that due to negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board the train, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration because the defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does 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. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 19-09-2011 Hsd