IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.617 of 2008 Between: Union of India rep.by its General Manager, South Easterm Railways, Kolkata ..... APPELLANT And Smt.D.Kajal and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.617 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 12.03.2008 in O.A.A.No.138 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents herein claiming compensation for the death of the deceased D. Jagadish Kumar, who died in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to pay compensation with interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the order till the date of realization. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The claim application was filed by the wife, two sons and mother of a person by name D.Jagadish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for his death in an alleged untoward incident that happened between Vizianagaram and Gotlam Railway Stations. First applicant is wife, 2nd and 3rd applicants are minor sons and 4th applicant is the mother of the deceased. The applicants have stated that the deceased was working as an agent in Raipur Polythene Factory and used to book orders for supply of polythene bags in Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam, Rajahmundry, Amalapuram, Tanuku and Gajapathinagaram etc. That, on 02.06.2000 the deceased started from his residence at Vizianagaram at 7 p.m. with a view to go to Gajapathinagaram, reached Vizianagaram railway station, purchased a journey ticket No.01246332 and boarded train No.230 Visakhapatnam-Durg passenger. While so traveling by the said train, accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train between Vizianagaram and Gotlam railway stations and died of injuries sustained in the said accident. During pendency of the case, the applicant No.4 died on 19.05.2007. 4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement dated 26.07.2000 denying the averments made in the application and stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not due to accidental fall from train in an untoward incident. As per the inquest report, the deceased was traveling by standing near the door violating all necessary cautions as displayed in each and every compartment and as such the injuries sustained are self-inflicted and therefore, the respondent-railways are not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased D.Jagdish Kumar? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.230 Visakhapatnam-Durg passenger, traveling from Vizianagaram to Gajapathinagaram on 02.06.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Vizianagaram and Goltlam railway stations? 4. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-railways, the Deputy Station Superintendent, Gotlam Railway Station, and Station Manager, Vizianagaram were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6. The Tribunal called for case diary and marked the same as Ex.C1. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing near the door in a running train, and therefore, the dependants and the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased; that the deceased was a abonafide passenger of the passenger train and died in an untoward incident and so, the claimants are entitled to compensation; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Sec.124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “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 person died or sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent- railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Sec.124-A of the Act. 10. As per Ex.C1 case diary, on 02.06.2000 at 7 p.m. the deceased traveled in train No.230 Visakhapatnam-Durg passenger train with a valid ticket No.01246332, and by that time due to plenty of persons, the deceased could not get seat in the compartment and therefore, he stood at the entrance door of the compartment and at about 20.40 hours when the train reached near Gotlam Railway Station at KM No.461/5-6 the deceased slipped accidentally due to jerkings of the train, sustained injuries and died instantaneously. Therefore, it is clear the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers. The ticket was not denied by the respondent-railways. The only ground taken by the railways that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing near the door in a running train, thereby exposing himself to danger, and hence the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. No evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to show that due to negligence on the part of the deceased only the untoward incident had occurred. Therefore, the contention that there was negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted. Further more, no such defence is available to the railway administration in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liabiliy. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided in the said proviso, and so, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, even though there is some negligence on the part of the deceased in standing near the door, it cannot be a ground to deny the compensation to the dependants of the deceased. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 16.09.2011 Gk