THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 1028 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 01-05-2006 in O.A.A.No.169 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 09-08-1998, the applicant purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.6010 at Kamalapuram to go to Yerraguntla and soon after it moved, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that in the absence of any information to any railway staff or train guard on the relevant date, the version of the applicant that he sustained injuries by falling from the running train cannot be believed. Further, the Certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, GRP, as proof of the incident cannot be believed. Since it was not an accidental fall of injuries from a train, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger by train No.6010 on 09-08-1998, traveling from Madras to Cuddapah holding journey ticket from Madras to Yerraguntla? 2. Whether the applicant fell down accidentally on losing balance between the platform and the train at Kamalapuram railway station and both his legs were crushed in an untoward incident 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4 lalkhs as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application, awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 60 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of due till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Union of India has filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- Railways and the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant and perused the record. 7. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the applicant as a result of which he sustained injuries and therefore, applicant is not entitled to the compensation in view of his negligence. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the applicant resulting in his injuries is not available to the railway administration under the Act and there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. 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 applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the applicant sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicants, then the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger or that the injuries sustained by the applicant are not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that the applicant sustained rush injuries to his both legs, below the knee in an untoward incident, which ultimately led to amputation of both of them. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the applicant as a result of which, he sustained injuries. 11. The defence of the negligence on the part of the applicant resulting in the injuries to him, is not available to the Railway administration under the Act, as the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the present case falls under any one of those exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not the case that applicant sustained injuries due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane or his falling down from the train carrying passengers is, thus, clearly accidental. 12. There are no grounds to interfere with the award granted by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr