THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No. 741 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.04.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.358 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one Dokku Rama Koteswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 15.09.2005 the deceased attended college at Battiprolu and then came to Battiprolu station to return to Rapelle. When the train No.126- passenger arrived and when he was in the process of getting into the train, the train started suddenly with jerks as a result of which, he lost his balance, fell down, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that the deceased had a monthly season ticket bearing No.04704 valid from 28.06.2005 to 27.09.2005. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 who are the mother and unmarried sister of the deceased filed the said O.A.A. 358 of 2006 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant (Railways). 3 The appellant/Railways contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the train arrived at Battiprolu railway station and started after two minutes, and after the train had started, the deceased came running from the West side, tried to board the running train and fell down to his death. It is further stated that the deceased died on account of his own negligence and this amounted to self inflicted injury for which claim was not admissible. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.126 passenger, travelling from Battiprolu to Repalle, on 15.09.2005? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants the mother of the deceased i.e. the first claimant was examined as A.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the appellant two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked. 6 After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of the order, failing which they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that this is a case of negligence on the part of the deceased as he tried to board the running train and therefore the Railways are not liable to pay any compensation. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that since it is an accidental fall from the running train, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10 Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of no fault liability. When a person falls from running train, it can be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The guard of the train who was examined as R.W.1 has categorically stated that while the deceased was trying to board the train, he accidentally fell down and sustained injuries and died. So the case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the clauses to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever is adduced by the Railways so as to contend that the case falls under any one of the exceptions of section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 11 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 04.08.2011 Kvsn