THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.421 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.122 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents towards compensation for the death of one Sridhar Suresh Telghar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 12.06.2004 while the deceased was travelling by Train No.303 Guntur – Hubli passenger in general compartment, holding two train tickets bearing Nos.57562 and 57563, he fell down accidentally from the said running train at Guntakal West Yard due to speed, jolt and jerks of the said train, as a result, he sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the respondents who are the parents of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that no fall would occur unless the victim had acted in a rash and negligent manner by not keeping the door of the compartment closed at the time he went to the wash basin, which act attracts to self infliction of injuries defined under the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) for which the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation, and that the manner in which the incident had occurred shows that the deceased had not fallen from the train accidentally and that it is a case of suicide or attempt to commit suicide, which disentitles the applicants under clause (a) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.303 Guntur-Hubli Passenger travelling from Markapuram to Hubli on 12.6.2004? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on the side of the applicants, the first applicant got himself examined as A.W.1 and one more witness was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Railway Administration no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondents/applicants as compensation and directed the appellant (Railways) to deposit the said amount with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the order till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the order impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that because of the negligence on the part of the deceased only he fell down from the running train and therefore for the lapses committed by the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to claim compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents contended that the plea of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration and that the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident and that he was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death, the applicants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, its case has to fall under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 11 Insofar as the negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever was adduced by the Railway Administration that their case falls under any one of the exceptions mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and that as it is also established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the applicants who are his legal representatives are entitled to compensation. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal on that aspect need no interference. 12 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 16.09.2011 GK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.421 of 2008 Date:16.9.2011 Gk