IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.772 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Deep Kumar Roy .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 25.04.2008, in O.A.A.No.103 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondent/applicant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident that took place on 18.04.2005, was allowed. 2. The respondent/applicant filed the claim application stating that on 17.04.2005, the applicant along with his parents and two sisters, with a view to come back to Chennai, started from their native place and came to Kharagpur Railway Station in the early hours at about 1.00 a.m. and purchased individual journey tickets for all of them from Kharagpur to Chennai. After sometime, they all boarded into Howrah-Tirupathi express and when the train reached Vijayawada Railway station, they all got down from the said train and with a view to go to Chennai, boarded train No.2655 Navajeevan express at Vijayawada on 18.04.2005. On the same day, when the train reached Kavali Railway station at about 12.45 noon, the applicant got down from the train with a view to fill water and after filling water in the bottle, he boarded the compartment. Suddenly the train started with jerk, as a result of which, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Platform No.2 of Kavali Railway station and the wheel of the train ran over his both legs, as a result, sustained grievous injuries, and he was taken to Government Hospital, Nellore where his both legs were amputated. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that while approaching stations, the trains would follow all safety measures and speed regulations, and that the train would not move an inch from the track, as it runs on track and not on the road to have jerks of such nature. Moreover, when a person falls from a running train, there would be some commotion among the co-passengers, and the train would be stopped to attend on the victim, and no such thing took place in the present case, and as such, prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train Howrah-Tirupathi express travelling from Kharagpur to Chennai Central on 17.04.2005? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the injured was a bona fide passenger and sustained injuries in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that there is negligence on the part of the injured resulting in sustaining of injuries and amputation of both legs; that for the negligence on the part of the injured, he is not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant contended that the injured sustained injuries in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the injured sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the injured was not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Sustaining of injuries by the applicant in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicant is entitled to compensation. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 26th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.772 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 AMD