THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1421 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 25-08-2008 in O.A.A No.252 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 L.Venkata Krishnan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2. The claimants filed O.A.A. stating that on 2-2-2006, the deceased along with his co-employees went to Secunderabad Railway Station and purchased a journey ticket No.26378308 from Secunderabad to Tirupathi and while boarding Train No.7424 Narayanadri Express, he slipped and fell down accidentally due to speed and jerks of the train and died on the spot. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and it does not come under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 ( for short ‘the Act’) 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 tried to board the running train and that due to his own negligence, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants contended that the ticket number has been specifically mentioned in Ex.A4 and that Ex.R2- 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 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there must be an untoward incident and in that untoward incident, a person died or sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. It is not in dispute that while the deceased was boarding the train untoward incident had happened. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train with valid ticket. As the two requirements are proved, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. Though it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Railways that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, still the railway administration cannot avoid payment of compensation to the applicants because the defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondents-claimants. 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 20-09-2011 rkk