THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.258 OF 2007 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 29-12-2006 in O.A.A No.204 of 2003 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/- for the death of Nage Sunitha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to pay the said amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of order or else, it shall carry interest at 6% p.a. till realization. 2. Brief facts are that on 12-05-2003 the deceased while traveling by train No.434 passenger from Guntur to Dharmavaram with a valid journey ticket, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained severe injuries, that the injured was loaded to the same train to shirt her to Dharmavaram for treatment, but on the way she succumbed to injuries. The journey ticket was seized by Government Railway Police. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the deceased was standing at the door of the compartment of the running train and looking outside, that the fall is not an untoward incident, but due to negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened and therefore, Railways are not liable to pay compensation. 4. 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. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of 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. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death as she was standing at the door of the compartment, and hence, the Railways are not liable to pay compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death is not available to the Railways, that the deceased died in an untoward incident and she was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, that the Tribunal after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. After receipt of information from the Guard, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by her. After inquest, the dead body 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. Therefore, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 10. With regard to bona fide passenger, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Even the Railways did not deny or dispute about the same. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 11. The only contention of the learned standing counsel for Railways is that due to own negligence of the deceased as she was standing at the door of the compartment, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 30-09-2011 Hsd