THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1575 OF 2008 14.09.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And K. Pramelamma & another. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1575 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 18.09.2008 in O.A.A No.280 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of K. Johnaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2) The claimants filed O.A.A. stating that the deceased was working as Khalasi in South Central Railway at Guntakal and with a view to go to railway hospital at Lallaguda, Secunderabad, he went to Guntakal railway station on the night of 23/24.05.2006 along with the applicants and boarded train No.7604 Yashwantpur – Kachiguda express in Coach No.S7 by holding a valid hospital permit bearing No.408557 issued on 29.05.2004 by the Medical Surgeon, S.C. Railway, Guntakal and the 2nd class free pass bearing No.162707 and that while travelling, he slipped and fell down accidentally at Gadwal railway station in the early hours of 24.05.2006, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3) The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the Safaiwala found the dead body on 24.05.2006 at 6.30 hours in between the track and the loop line at Gadwal railway station and that the statement of the first applicant recorded on 14.11.2006, which is part and parcel of the Divisional Railway Manager’s report, reveals that she was traveling with the deceased in reserved coach with railway free pass on 24.05.2006 by train No.7604 from Guntakal to Kachiguda for medical treatment and that while her husband opened the door to spit outside due to cough, slipped and fell down, which is a negligent act of the deceased and that the death might be due to the reasons not connected with fall from train and so, the incident does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4) The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident accidental fall from the said train as alleged? 4. To what relief?” 5) On behalf of the applicants, AW.1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A5 are marked. On behalf of respondent railways, RW.1 is examined. 6) The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7) Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8) Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and that due to his own negligence, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 9) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that she went to Guntakal railway station with the deceased in the night of 23/24.05.2006 with a view to go to railway hospital at Lalaguda, Secunderabad along with their son and boarded train No.7604 Yashwantpur - Kachiguda express in Coach No.S7 by holding a valid hospital permit bearing No.408557 issued by the Medical Surgeon, S.C. Railway, Guntakal on 29.05.2004 and that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, is not available to the railways, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10) There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is 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 traveling in a passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the railways want to resist the claim, it has to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11) Insofar as the aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, it is contended by the railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. But, the evidence of AW.1, who is the wife of the deceased, would clearly go to show that she also traveled along with the deceased in the said train and that they are having valid medical pass/permit. When once a witness has stated a fact and the same has not been denied or disputed, it can be inferred that the said fact is admitted. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket. 12) Coming to second aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. There cannot be any dispute that the applicants need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicants show that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even assuming for a moment that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the applicants. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13) Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 14-09-2011 ES