IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 378 OF 2005 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Paila Narsimhulu and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 378 of 2005 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2005 in O.A.A.No.140 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Paila Ramarao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the said order till realization. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal 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 applicants filed claim application stating that on 14.05.2000, the deceased along with one Nagaraju boarded train No.7480 Tirupati-Howrah Express at Akiveedu Railway Station and while they were travelling in the said passenger train, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Regupalem Railway Station at KM 713/4-5 and died on the spot. The deceased was having general tickets bearing Nos.39423 and 04356 from Akiveedu to Chipurupally. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased; that the deceased was travelling in the train without any ticket; that the deceased did not fall from the said train during his journey as alleged and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Paila Ramarao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7840 travelling from Akiveedu to Chipurupally on 14.05.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train in Regupalem Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. C.W.1 was examined and Exs.C.1 to C.5 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the fall of the deceased from the train was accidental one and is covered by the definition of ‘untoward incident’. Challenging the same, railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that due to negligence on the part of the deceased, while he was travelling from Akiveedu to Chipurupally, he fell down and sustained injuries; and so, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the two requirements under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) are established by the applicants, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and that order needs no interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying with passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was noticed by the side of the track by the Guard of the train. Immediately after the incident, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the two requirements are established beyond preponderance of probability. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Whether there is fault or not, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation once the two requirements are established. If the railway administration wanted to absolve its liability, it has to show that the case falls under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Admittedly, the present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 YVL