IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.649 of 2006 Date:23.03.2011 Between:- The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And K.Seshadri and others .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 04.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.356 of 2002 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 for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one K.Samiel in a railway accident that took place on 11.12.2002 was allowed. 2. The case of the respondents/applicants is that applicant No.1 is the father, and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers, of the deceased. On 11.12.2002, when the deceased was traveling by passenger Train No.163 from Mustabad to Chirala along with others and when the train reached Chirala station, due to the sudden jerks, he fell down accidentally and his both the legs were amputated, and died subsequently. 3. The case of the appellant/respondent is that due to the negligence of the deceased, he fell down and died, for which the Railway Administration is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased K.Samiel? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.163 Passenger travelling from Mustabad to Chirala on 11.12.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Chirala Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor documents marked. 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, who was traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket, and accidentally fell down from the train and sustained injuries and died, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/railways, it is purely negligence on the part of the deceased while getting down from the train and therefore, the Railway Administration is not liable for payment of compensation. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under Section 124-A of the Act. 10. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The death of the deceased by falling from the train is not disputed. The fact that he is a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train is not in dispute. The cause of the death as mentioned in the post mortem report is also not in dispute. Therefore, it is to be seen whether there is negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train. According to the case of the respondents, while the deceased was getting down, there was a sudden jerk to the compartment, as a result, he fell down accidentally. To show that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, no evidence was adduced by the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No such plea has been taken or established by the Railway Administration. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.649 of 2006 Date:23.03.2011 AMD