IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 734 OF 2009 Between : Union of India and another …APPELLANTS A N D Shaik Peeran and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 734 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 24.10.2008, in O.A.A.No.186 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Smt Shaik Khairunbi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the respondents, 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, on 06.03.2002, the deceased in order to go from Bagalkot to Cumbum, boarded train No.258 with a ticket bearing No.800420, while travelling accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train at Gadag R.S. and sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Gadag and while undergoing treatment she died on the same day. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent No.1- Railways filed written statement and stating that on 22.01.2004 the Southern Railway has wrongly impleaded in this case; that seeking dismissal of the application, the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket and putting the applicants to strict documentary proof of the same and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. The respondent No.2 has not filed any written statement; 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? a) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.258 passenger travelling from Bhagalkot to Cumbum on 06.03.2002? 2. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, Applicant No.1 examined himself as AW-1 and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined, and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. The only ground taken in this appeal is that due to negligence on the part of the deceased only she fell down from the train, sustained injuries and died. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute before this Court that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. Section 124A of the Railways Act is in the nature of no fault liability and the deceased need not prove the negligence. If the applicants show that she accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if there is negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train, that cannot be a ground for not granting compensation. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under provision to Section 124-A of the Act and the case does not fall under any one of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 24.10.2008, in O.A.A.No.186 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 12, 2011 YVL