THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants/ claimants aggrieved by the order, dated 04.12.2009 in O.A.A No.78 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the appellants/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their mother K.Bheemamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 14.11.2004, the deceased and her daughter M.Narasamma, in order to go to Shadnagar from Mahaboobnagar, purchased two passengers tickets, but boarded a wrong train i.e. train no.7607 Secunderabad- Kurnool Tungabhadra Express, instead of Train no.526 Dhone- Secunderabad passenger, as they were illiterates. They came to know about the same just before the train started and came to the door, the daughter got down first but when the deceased was getting down from the train, due to sudden jerks, she accidentally slipped and fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stating that as the claimants failed to produce a ticket, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and that since she tried to get down from a moving train, she was responsible for her own death, and hence, the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the evidence of A.W.1, who is daughter of the deceased and who boarded the train on the fateful along with the deceased, is clear that the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded a wrong train due to illiteracy, and hence, she is a bona f i de passenger, but this aspect of the case has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal in right perspective, and hence, the claimants are entitled to the compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and hence, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation and considering the same, the Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. 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 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. Coming to aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, it is not in dispute that the on the fateful day, the deceased and A.W.1 boarded a wrong train in order to go to Shadnagar from Mahaboobnagar, and on coming to know about the same, while getting down from the train, she fell down and died. The report submitted by the Divisional Railway Manager also reveals the same. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. There cannot be any dispute that the claimants need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the claimants show that the deceased had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. Insofar as aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, on coming to know about the incident, police registered a case, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for postmortem examination. No doubt, the claimants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. At the same time, the evidence of A.W.1, who is daughter of the deceased and who also boarded the wrong train on that day, is very clear that the deceased and herself, after purchasing ticket, boarded a wrong train. The evidence of A.W.1 that the deceased purchased the ticket, remained unchallenged. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.1. Presence of A.W.1 at the spot has been specifically stated in inquest report. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.1. If the evidence of A.W.1 is to be accepted as true and correct, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this award till realization. The claimants are entitled to share the compensation amount equally. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 29-08-2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2009 29.08.2011 Between K.Venkataiah & others …Appellants And Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Respondent