THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 89 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 16-10-2005 in O.A.A.No.516 of 2005, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 21-07-2005, the applicant purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.2759 express at Chennai to go to Hyderabad and when the train reached near Lakdikapool on the next day morning of 22-07- 2005, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train and sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMS, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Hence, the applicant filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the injuries sustained by him attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the applicant has not filed the journey ticket, therefore, he is not a bona fide passenger. Further, the applicant tried to get down from running train at Lakdikapool station where there is no schedule halt before completing his journey, and due to his own negligence act, he fall from the train and sustained injuries. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train No.2759, travelling from Chennai to Hyderabad? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application, awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 30 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of that order till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-railways have filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- Railways and the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant and perused the record. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is legal and proper? 8. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the applicant as a result of which he sustained injuires and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the compensation in view of the laches committed by the applicant. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the applicant as a result of which he sustained injuries is not available to the railway administration under the Act and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the applicant sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicant, then he is entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the applicant is not a bona fide passenger or the injuries sustained by the applicant are not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that the applicant sustained injuries in the accidental fall. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the applicant as a result of which he sustained injuries. 12. Admittedly, the defence of negligence on the part of the applicant as a result of which he sustained injuries is not available to the Railway administration under Section 124-A of the Act, as the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the present case falls under any one of those exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 13. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr