THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.792 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 07-05-2009 in O.A.A No.467 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Smt.Katakam Sugunamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed and directing the Railways to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of order, failing which, the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts are that on 11-05-2006, while the deceased was travelling from Jangaon to Mahaboobabad in train No.7406 after purchasing ticket, she accidentally fell down from the train at Jangaon Railway Station and died. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or 124-A of the Act. The enquires revealed that the deceased tried to board the moving train at Jangaon Railway Station, she fell down between the platform and train and the said act amounts to criminal act of the deceased which disentitles the applicants from claiming compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 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.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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. As far as bona fide passenger is concerned, the Railway Administration is not disputing about the same. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was trying to board the moving train and due to her own negligence, the incident had happened and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. 10. There cannot be any dispute that if a person accidentally falls from a running train, then he is entitled for compensation. In this case, no doubt the deceased tried to board the moving train, as a result, she slipped accidentally and fell down from the compartment and died. It is the case of the Railway Administration that while boarding the moving train, due to negligence of the deceased, she fell down from the moving train. That defence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the clauses as mentioned in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, rightly awarded compensation. The said order needs no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 18-08-2011 Hsd