IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1187 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And K.Jogamma and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 04.08.2009, in O.A.A.No.323 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants 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.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of K.Venkatramaiah (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 02.11.2004, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife, sons and daughters of the deceased; that on 02.11.2004, the deceased, with a view to go to Eluru from Rajahmundry to take the pension, went to Rajahmundry railway station along with his 3rd son K.V.Muralidhar, purchased a II Class train journey ticket bearing No.07923007 and boarded train No.432 Kakinada – Vijayawada Fast passenger in general compartment, which was next to the engine and left for Powerpet, and when the train halted at Powerpet Railway Station, the deceased got down from the compartment and after departure of said train, while he was crossing the track to go to the exit gate on platform No.1, he was hit by train No.3352 Alleppey/Dhanbad/Tatanagar Express, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the application stating that the death of the deceased was due to trespass; that the incident does not attract the provisions of Section 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Act; that the incident was occurred due to the criminal acts of the deceased; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of train No.3352 and since the applicants have not produced the journey ticket, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.432 Kakinada – Vijayawada fast passenger travelling from Rajahmundry to Powerpet on 02.11.2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 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 deceased was a bona fide passenger and died 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 was negligence on the part of the deceased in crossing the track, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants are 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 respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration; 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 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was noticed by the railway officials by the side of the track. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during inquest, the mediators observed various injuries on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem examination and the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, also opined that the deceased died as a result of the multiple injuries all over the body. It is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Therefore, he was a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. It is not the case of the Railways that the death of the deceased was a case of suicide or as a result of self inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he died due to any natural cause or disease. 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 provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 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 28th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1187 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 AMD