IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.262 of 2009. Date:11.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And L.Lakshminarayanamma .. Respondent/Applicant JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 19.11.2008, in O.A.A.No.192 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondent/applicant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a railway accident that took place on 02.12.2005 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: On the night of 02.12.2005, in order to go to Vijayawada, the respondent/applicant went to Samalkot Railway Station and purchased a train journey ticket bearing No.61003386 to travel from Samalkot to Vijayawada and boarded train No.472 Rayagada – Vijayawada passenger in a general compartment. When the train started and was leaving the platform of Samalkot Railway Station, suddenly, she slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train in between the platform and the train, as a result of which, her right leg was cut and separated at the middle of the thigh, the left foot was crushed, cut and separated by the wheels of the train. The train was stopped and after first aid, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada through railway police. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments made in the application and stated that there is no cause of action for the applicant, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) or 124-A of the Act. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.472 Rayagada – Vijayawada passenger travelling from Samalkot to Vijayawada on 02.12.2005? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of the train accident? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material available on record, granted compensation to the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that since the injured was standing on the foot board, due to her negligence, the incident had happened and hence, she is not entitled to the compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that it is not a case of injured attempting to commit suicide and even if some negligence is there on the part of the applicant, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation and hence, he prays to sustain the impugned order. 10. Two requirements are to be satisfied in a claim for compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant. One is that a person sustained an injury in an untoward incident and secondly, he must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Insofar as the point whether the applicant is a bona fide passenger or not, is concerned it is not in dispute that the injured was travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the applicant sustained injuries in the untoward incident. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicant shows that she accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. No doubt, the injured was standing on the foot board and even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the injured, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.262 of 2009. Date:11.08.2011 AMD