THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 09-09-2009 in O.A.A No.40 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Kommanaboina Satyavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed granting simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter at 9% p.a. till the date of actual payment and further directed the Railways to pay the amount within 3 months from the date of order. 2. Brief facts are that on 06-02-2005 the deceased purchased a ticket for the journey from Tenali to Tsunduru and got into 7230 Sabari express. On learning from co-passengers that the train did not stop at Tsunduru, she came to the door to get down. When the train started with a jerk, she fell down, dragged some distance and the train ran over her dead body. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the ticket was for a passenger train and not for an Express train. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and she died on account of her own careless actions. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked. On behalf of Railways, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were got marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the 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. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. As far as bona fide passenger is concerned, the Railway Administration is not disputing about the same. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was trying to get down from the running train and due to her own negligence, the incident had happened and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. 10. There cannot be any dispute that if a person accidentally falls from a running train, then he is entitled for compensation. In this case, no doubt the deceased tried to get down from the running train, as a result, she slipped accidentally and fell down from the compartment and died. It is the case of the Railway Administration that the deceased due to her own negligence while trying to get down from the running train, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the exceptions as mentioned in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 24-08-2011 Hsd