THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 03.11.2008 in O.A.A No.511 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Sandeep Shankar Patil (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2. The claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that on the intervening night of 08/09.09.2006, while the deceased was travelling in train no.7430 Tirupati-Hyderabad/Kolhapur Rayalaseema Express with ticket no.101185233 from Tirupati to Kolhapur, he slipped and fell down accidentally at KM NO.396/1-2 between Rayalacheruvu and Jaklalacheruvu Railway Stations due to speed and jerks of train, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stating that a railway Keyman noticed dead body of a male person at KM No.396/1-2 between Rayalacheruvu and Jaklalacheruvu Railway Stations, and that there was no alarm chain pulling and neither the Guard nor any passenger had informed about the fall of any passenger from the train on the said day, and that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and that due to his own negligence, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants contended that ticket number has been specifically mentioned in Ex.A2 and that Ex.R1-report of Divisional Railway Manager clearly shows the ticket number, and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, is not available to the railways, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling 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 respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. Insofar as aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, though it is contended by the railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as seen from the recitals in Ex.R1-Divisional Railway Manager’s report, ticket number has been mentioned. On coming to know about the incident, police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of investigation are admissible in evidence. Further more, railway official himself gave a report to police stating that the deceased was having a ticket as mentioned in Ex.R1. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 10. Coming to second aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. 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 claimants show that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, 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. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 24-08-2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009 24.08.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Sruthi Sandeep Patil & others …Respondents