IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 158 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Shaik Shajahan and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 158 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2007 in O.A.A.No.79 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Shaik Karimulla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, 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 was working as a Courier and he used to travel between Singarayakonda and Kandukuru for delivery of letters. On 11.12.2000 at about 20:50 hours, the deceased came to Singarayakonda railway station and boarded train No.7053 Chennai-Hyderabad Express. While the deceased was travelling in the passenger train in second class compartment, he had accidentally slipped and fell down from the train due to sudden jerk and speed of the train, received injuries and died subsequently in the hospital while undergoing treatement. During the course of incident, the deceased lost the journey ticket. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as the applicants have failed to produce the journey ticket of the deceased; that it is a case of self inflicted injuries and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W1 was examined and Ex.R1 was got marked. 6. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/railways. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended the applicants have miserably failed to produce the journey ticket of the deceased to show that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; that due the negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened and the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘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 travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 9. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that while the deceased was trying to board train No.7053 Chennai- Hyderabad Express at Singarayakonda Railway Station, he had accidentally slipped and fell down due to sudden jerk of the passenger train and sustained injuries. Immediately, after the incident, the deceased was taken to hospital and his statement was recorded by the Doctor in the presence of police. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Therefore, the untoward incident has been established beyond preponderance of probability by the applicants. 10. Coming to the second aspect, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket or not, the applicants produced Ex.A.2–which is the statement of the deceased recorded by the Doctor in the presence of police. A statement made by a person either written or verbal as to the cause of death or any one of the circumstances resulting in his death, when the cause of that person’s death comes into question, is admissible under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The statement of the deceased would clearly go to show that he purchased a ticket to travel in a passenger train and while he was boarding into the train, there was a jerk and as a result, he fell down accidentally and sustained injuries. Maker of that statement died subsequently. Therefore, that statement can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. Ex.A.2 statement remained unchallenged. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A.2, the deceased was a bona fide passenger and so, the applicants are entitled to compensation. 11. The contention of the appellant/railways is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death as he tried to board a running train. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the Railways because, the defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. Section 124A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. The respondent/applicants have to prove that there was an untoward incident happened and in that incident the deceased died and he was travelling on a passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wanted to absolve its liability, it has to show that the case falls under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Admittedly, the present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 YVL