THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.776 OF 2010 19.10.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Koruprolu Mahalakshmi @ Lakshmi & others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.776 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 22.06.2010 in O.A.A No.156 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. Ramana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the railways to pay the said amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment. 2) The claimants filed O.A.A. stating that the deceased was traveling from Puri to Tuni with his mother in train No.2845 Bhuvaneswar – Yaswanthpur Express, that his mother got down at Visakhapatnam and he traveled up to Tuni, that because of the jerks of the train, the deceased fell down accidentally and got injured and that he was taken to the Government hospital at Tuni and later at Kakinada, he succumbed to injuries on 22.12.2005. 3) The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the train, in which the deceased was traveling, did not have a scheduled stop at Tuni, that Divisional Railway Manager’s investigation reveal that the deceased had tried to get down at Tuni from the running train by which reason he got injured and died. It is further stated that this was a case of self-inflicted injury 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 therefore the railways are not liable to pay 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 No.2845 Express, traveling from Puri to Tuni on 18.12.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief?” 5) On behalf of the applicants, AW.1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the railways. 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 traveling in the train carrying passengers and that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, who tried to come down at Tuni railway station even though there was no scheduled stop for the train in which he was traveling 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 original ticket (Ex.A1) shows that the deceased was traveling from Puri to Tuni in Train No.2845, that the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that the deceased fell down from the said train, which is also evident from FIR (Ex.A4) wherein it is mentioned that the deceased fell down from the said train on platform No.1, that the inquest report (Ex.A5) also states that the deceased died on account of accidental fall from the said train when he was traveling from Puri to Tuni, and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death, 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 with valid ticket. 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 deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train or its case 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 and the original ticket (Ex.A1) show that the deceased was traveling from Puri to Tuni in Train No.2845. 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 train carrying passengers 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 exceptions as provided 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: 19-10-2011 ES