IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 722 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Guggila Satyavathi …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 722 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2008 in O.A.A.No.322 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent/applicant for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that on 17.09.2003 while she along with her brother boarded train No.2763 Padmavathi Express in order go to from Kalahasti to Vijayawada, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the said passenger train at Vijayawada Railway Station and sustained severe injuries resulting in amputation of her right hand. 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 Guard of train No.2763 stated that the said passenger train arrived Kalahasti at 17:50 hours and departed at 17:52 hours and arrived Vijayawada at 23:35 hours on the same day; that no accident fall at Vijayawada has been reported by any passenger and there was no ACP and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 2. Whether the Applicant sustained injuries as result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent R.W.1 was and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the applicant sustained amputation of right hand below elbow joint which is covered by item No.4 of the Part III of Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. Challenging the same, the appellant/railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in trying to get down the running train and so, the applicant is not entitled to compensation for the lapses committed by her and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended that under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) if there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident the applicant sustained injury, then only the applicant is entitled to compensation; that basing on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation 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 with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or applicant 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, once the applicant proves that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and sustained injuries in an untoward incident, then she is entitled to compensation. Both the aspects have not been seriously denied or disputed by the Railways before the Tribunal. Ex.A.2 is the O.P. ticket, which would go to show that the applicant had fallen from the running train and sustained injuries. Therefore, it is an untoward incident. Similarly, the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that while she was trying to get down from the compartment, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries. It is not in dispute that she purchased Ex.A.1, which is a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. Ex.A.1 is not shown to be incorrect or invalid ticket. There is no contra evidence adduced by the railways to show that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. The contention that there was negligence on the part of the applicant cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that no such defence is available to the railway administration. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act. The 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. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 YVL