THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1381 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 18.08.2008 in O.A.A No.93 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of R.V.V.Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2. The claimants filed O.A.A. stating that on 30-3-2004 at 20-43 hours, while the deceased was traveling in passenger train No.423 Gudur-Vijayawada with ticket No.04067464 from Nidubrolu to Vijayawada, he slipped and fell down accidentally due to speed and jerks of train, sustained multiple injuries and thereafter succumbed to injuries. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the incident 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/ applicants contended that the ticket number has been specifically mentioned in Ex.A3 and that Ex.R1-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 124A 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, the person must be 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 had happened or 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 running train the untoward incident had happened. The dead body of the deceased was found lying on the side of the track at Nidubrolu. On coming to know about the incident, police registered a case under Ex.A1 and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. After inquest, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to Post-Mortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained all over the body. Exs.R1 to R4 would clearly prove that the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and died. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is not a case where the deceased intentionally tried to board the running train. There was some negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board the running train, as a result of which, he fell down accidentally and sustained injuries. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the applicants 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 applicants show that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train and died, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of the Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under the 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 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- applicants. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 20-09-2011 rkk