THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.4 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2009 made in O.A.A.No.38 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity} filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 {“the Act” for brevity}, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the death of the deceased P.R. Anil Kumar, who died in train accident on 11.09.2001. 2. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under. The application is filed by the wife, daughter and mother of P.R.Anil Kumar who is stated to have died in an untoward incident on 11.09.2001. It was stated in the application that the deceased, as Ex- Serviceman from Indian Navy, was a bona fide passenger in train No.6346, express train, from Allappuzha to Mumbai, had a valid ticket (No.55461857 and EF Ticket No.783691), and took his last breath on 11.09.2001, at Isvi Railway Station, Adoni Mandal of Kurnool District, in Andhra Pradesh. The ticket number was allowed to be corrected (55461827 instead of 55461857 vide orders in I.A.No.195/04 of 06.07.2005). The applicants claimed Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. 3. The Railways resisted the claim in the Written statement stating that the ticket number given in the application did not tally with the ticket number given in the copy of the ticket enclosed with the application, the inquest report had not been produced, and stated that he died on account of his own actions, and the applicants were put to proof regarding their averments in the application. 4. The issues framed on 09.08.2005 were: (1) Whether the applicants were 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 fall from the train? (4) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined but no document was marked. 6. Considering the evidence and material on record, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation for the own negligence of the deceased. 9. For the purpose of compensation, as per proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied; (1) A person is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; and (2) He died in an untoward incident. 10. With regard to the first requirement, it is not in dispute that the injured was a bona fide passenger. He produced Ex.A1-original ticket and the same is not shown as invalid ticket. 11. Coming to the second aspect, the only contention raised by the appellant is that due to the negligence of the injured only the incident had taken place and therefore, the injured is not entitled to compensation. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant 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 applicant shows that she accidentally 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 injured, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under any one 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 any one of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs. ____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 19th August 2011 RRB