IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.437 OF 2009 Between : The Union of India. ... APPELLANT A N D Smt Kauda Laxmi …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.437 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 20.01.2009, in O.A.A.No.333 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent-applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of K.Veda Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that she is the dependent of the deceased, who died as a result of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent- Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per report of the Chief Booking Clerk, Yakutpura, after departure of train No.359, some of the passengers shouted that one male person was run over at the end of the platform and the spot at which the body was found also lead to the conclusion that the deceased tried to board a running train, resulting in death and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, the applicant examined herself as A.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal allowed the Claim Application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Railways. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he tried to board the running train, that the deceased was dragged to the end of the platform and died; that therefore, the Railway administration is not liable to pay 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 applicant is that 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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicant fall under any one of the exceptions mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a ticket, which was noticed by police during the course of inquest. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Unless the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act, the claim application cannot be dismissed. Negligence on the part of the deceased is not a ground for dismissing the claim application under Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident and died, the applicant is entitled for compensation. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 20.01.2009 in O.A.A.No.333 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad _______________ K.C.BHANU, J AUGUST 12, 2011. YVL