IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.407 of 2006. Date:09.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And R.Lakshmi .. Respondent/Applicant JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 24.01.2006, in O.A.A.No.288 of 2000 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 Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a railway accident that took place on 15.11.2000 was partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- to the applicant. 2 . The respondent/applicant filed the O.A.A. stating that on 15.11.2000, the injured, having a journey ticket No.17570 to travel from Undi to Pedana, boarded train No.103 Narsapur-Gudivada passenger, and when the train reached Pedana Railway Station, while she was getting down, the train moved with sudden jerk due to which she accidentally slipped and sustained severe injuries. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments in the petition but admitted that according to the On Duty Assistant Station Master of Pedana Railway Station, some passengers reported him that a woman aged 60 years fell down while getting down from the train, and she was taken away by her relatives to Machilipatnam for treatment, but they pleaded that the fall might be due to the negligence and criminal act of the injured, who is not a bona fide passenger. 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 No.111 Gudivada-Machilipatnam passenger travelling from Undi to Pedana via Gudivada on 15.11.2000? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Pedana railway station while getting down from the train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant/injured was a bona fide passenger and she sustained injuries in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. 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 was negligence on the part of the applicant and therefore, the applicant 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 applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident; that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the defence of negligence on the part of the injured is not available to the railway administration and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Two requirements are to be satisfied in a claim for compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant. One is that a person sustained an injury in an untoward incident and secondly, he must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent received injuries in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. When these two aspects are established beyond preponderance of probability, it is needless to observe that the applicant is entitled to the compensation. The only defence taken by the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the injured resulting in the untoward incident. The defence of negligence on the part of the injured is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because it 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. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the injured is untenable and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 9th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.407 of 2006 Date:09.09.2011 AMD