THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 456 of 2006 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 01-03-2006 in O.A.A.No.318 of 2002, 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 15-12-2001, the deceased-Doddi Nooka Appa Rao purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.455 at Anakapally to go to Visakhapatnam, and soon after it moved, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants have filed this application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondent-railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that as per the inquiries, it was reported that one male person while attempting to enter into train while it was in motion, fell down, run over and his both legs cut, and therefore, it was due to the negligent act of the deceased only, as such, it is an exception of Section 124-A of the Act. Hence, since it was an accidental fall, 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 the dependents of the deceased Doddi Nooka Appa Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.455 Kakinada-Visakhapatnam passenger, traveling from Anakapalli to Visakapatnam on 15-12-2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward of accidental fall from the train at Anakapalli Rly. Station? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 60 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of due till payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Union of India has filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death as he tried to board the running train at railway station, Anakapalli and that the dependency of the dependents has not been clearly proved . 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration under the Act, and that in the inquest report, the relationship of the deceased has been clearly mentioned and further, the Tribunal directed the claimants to produce the dependency certificate from the competent authority. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be an untoward incident whereunder 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 traveling in the train carrying passengers 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 has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that as the deceased tried to board the running train, fell down accidentally on platform No.3 of Anakapally railway station and died. Police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and also subjected the dead body to postmortem examination. It is not in dispute that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in train carrying passengers. When the two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled for compensation. 11. The defence of the negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the Railway administration under the Act, as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124 of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence is 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. 12. 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. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 27th September 2011 kvr