IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.750 of 2009. Date:30.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And M.Kamala Kumari and others .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 27.04.2009, in O.A.A.No.271 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Mulpuri Muralidhar Rao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 26.10.2004 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: Respondents/applicants are the wife and daughters of the deceased. On 26.10.2004, at about 2.30 a.m., the deceased along with his son-in-law, Adusumilli Anil Kumar, who had come to railway station to give send off to the deceased, came to Khammam Railway Station to go to Machilipatnam, purchased a train journey ticket bearing No.22655134 and boarded train No.7050 Dn. Secunderabad- Machilipatnam Express. Due to sudden start of the train with jerk, he fell down accidentally from the train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments made in the application and stated that there is no cause of action for applicants, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Act. As per the message issued by Dy. SS/KMT to SI GRP/KMT, one male unidentified person was run over and killed by 7050 express at the end of the platform, as per the information given by a passenger. As per the Guard of the train, he did not see any person falling from the train, there was no ACP to the train nor anybody informed him about the fall of the passenger. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are put to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, no witnesses were examined nor any documents marked. However, the respondent filed the statutory report of the Divisional Railway Manager along with the written statement. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that he is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. When these two aspects are established beyond preponderance of probability, it is needless to observe that the appellants are entitled to the compensation. The only defence taken by the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because it is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is untenable and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.750 OF 2009 Date:30.08.2011 AMD