THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.1216 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2006 passed in O.A.A.No.384 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the said O.A.A. filed by the appellant seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her mother-Rangamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 15.04.2002 while the deceased was boarding train No.7085 at Gadwal Railway Station, along with her other family members, had fallen from the running train and died on the spot when the train ran over her. In this connection the applicant being the legal representative of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the respondent stating that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 3 The respondent contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that the deceased tried to catch the moving train and hence the act of commission or omission amounts to criminal act, for which the Railways cannot be mulcted with liability and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether on 15.04.2002 the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and five documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the appellant one witness was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 was marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application observing that the deceased had taken the risk of boarding the running train and sustained injuries, which amounts to self-inflicted injuries and hence the Railways are exempted from payment of compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’). 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for compensation for the death of her mother? 8 The learned counsel for the applicant contended that while the deceased was boarding the train, she accidentally fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot and hence the claimant is entitled for compensation since it is an untoward incident. 9 On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Railways contended that due to the negligence of the deceased only the accident had occurred as the deceased tried to board the running train and hence the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the said award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 Two requirements are to be satisfied for claiming compensation. In case of death, the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. Insofar as the aspect of bonafide passenger is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. Therefore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 11 The next question is whether the claimant is entitled to compensation or not. Admittedly, when the deceased was trying to board the running train, she fell down and sustained injuries and died. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. Negligence on the part of deceased resulting in his death is irrelevant. If the case of the Railway Administration falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the claimants are not entitled for compensation. The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the categories as mentioned in that proviso. Therefore, even if there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the claimant. Hence the claimant is entitled for compensation. 12 In the result, the appeal is allowed awarding an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the claimant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of award and thereafter at 9% till the date of realization. 13 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways contended that with regard to granting of interest from the date of petition till the date of award, a review petition is filed before the Supreme Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi’s case (2009 ACJ 2444) and seeks two months time to deposit the said interest. In view of the fact that a review petition is pending before the Supreme Court, the respondent is directed to deposit the interest granted by virtue of this order from the date of petition till the date of award after two months from today. In respect of compensation, the same shall be deposited forthwith. On such deposit, the applicant is entitled to withdraw the same. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J 11.08.2011 Kvsn