IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 76 OF 2008 Between : Union of India rep.by its General Manager. …APPELLANT A N D R.V.Krishna and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 76 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’), is directed against the order, dated 28.09.2007, in O.A.A.No.177 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Rokkam Harsha Verdhan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of Judgment, failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realization. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are that, on 11.02.2002, in the evening the applicants along with the deceased went to Chennai railway station with a view to return to Berhampur, purchased II class journey-cum-reservation ticket bearing PNR No.441-5220674, ticket No.51638144 and boarded S-2 coach of train No.6004 Chennai-Howrah mail at about 22:30 hrs. On 12.02.2002, the train was halted at Nellore railway station. Since there was derailment of goods train near Bitragunta, as such the train was diverted from the schedule route via Renigunta, Gooty, Guntakal and Dronachalam. On 13.02.2002, in the afternoon, when the deceased along with his father was going to attend nature calls, suddenly the deceased slipped and fell down from the running train at KM No.315/11-12 in between Linganenidoddi and Malliyala railway stations due to jerk of the train and sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application to the effect that applicants are dependents of the deceased; that the deceased travelled by Train No.6004 Chennai-Howrah, by purchasing ticket No.441-5220674; that the train was diverted through another route; that the deceased while going to attend nature calls suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally and died. It is stated that the parents of the deceased would have raised hue and cry and reported the matter to the railway officials or pulled the alarm chain; that as per the report of the Guard, the alleged fall of the deceased was not brought to the notice of the Guard nor the train was stopped by pulling the alarm chain; that taking advantage of the dead body lying beside the track, the applicants have made out a case to gain unlawfully and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Rokkam Harshavardhan? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6004 Channai-Howrah mail, traveling from Chennai to Berhampur on 11.02.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Linganenidoddi and Malliyala Railway Stations while passing in diverted route on 13.02.2002? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, applicant No.1 was himself examined as, AW-1 and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were got marked. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the railways-appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that the respondents/applicants are not dependents of the deceased; that granting of compensation by the Tribunal is not proper and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train with a valid ticket; that he died in an untoward incident; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. For claiming compensation under the Act, the applicants need not prove the negligence on the part of Railways. If the applicants prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident with a valid ticket, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. 10. It is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with a valid ticket. While the father of the deceased was taking the deceased to attend nature calls, due to sudden jerk of the train, the deceased fell down, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The police also seized a valid ticket showing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train. Therefore, it is a case where the deceased died in an untoward incident while traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 28.09.2007 in O.A.A.No.177 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 09, 2010 YVL