IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.348 of 2009 Date:21.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And G.Shyamala and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2008, in O.A.A.No.533 of 2005 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 under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of G.Venkata Suresh (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 30.11.2005, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife and minor son of the deceased; that the deceased was working as a Season Boy and used to purchase materials in wholesale and supply the same to local traders; that the deceased purchased a season ticket bearing No.08872307 to travel from Kavali to Gudur, which was valid from 22.11.2005 to 21.12.2005; that on 30.11.2005 morning, the deceased came to Kavali railway station, purchased one superfast surcharge ticket bearing No.08878009 and boarded train No.2760 Charminar Express at about 11.30 a.m. and when the train was about to stop at Gudur Railway Station, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Gudur railway station between the train and the platform, sustained serious injuries and subsequently, while undergoing treatment, died in the hospital. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the incident was caused due to the criminal acts of the deceased, which disentitles the applicants from claiming compensation, and denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the applicants are dependents of the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of any train No.2760 Charminar Express travelling from Kavali to Gudur on 30.11.2005? 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, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, no witnesses were examined but the Divisional Railway Manager’s report was marked as Ex.R-1. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the deceased was having a ticket to travel in a passenger train, but the untoward incident had happened while he was travelling in an express train and therefore, the ticket is not a valid one; that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and hence, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to compensation and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that though the deceased was having a season ticket, by purchasing a superfast surcharge ticket, he boarded the train and the same was incorporated in the inquest report; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased by falling from a train carrying passengers is not in dispute. The police, after coming to know about the incident, registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, they found two tickets on the body of the deceased. One is a seasonal ticket and another is a superfast surcharge ticket bearing No.08878009 valid to travel from Kavali to Gudur. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in an express train are admissible under law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on this aspect is untenable and devoid of merit. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 21st September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.348 of 2009 Date:21.09.2011 AMD