IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.146 of 2009 Date:07.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Dubba Santhamma and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 19.11.2008, in O.A.A.No.215 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Duba Apparao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 05.07.2005 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife, sons and father respectively of the deceased. On 05.07.2005, at about 9.45 p.m., the deceased came to Chirala Railway station, purchased a journey ticket No.08886708 for himself to travel from Chirala to Nellore and subsequently, his father also came to the railway station and purchased a separate ticket from Chirala to Nellore and they boarded into general compartment in train No.6003 Howrah- Chennai Mail. As the train was nearing Nellore, both went near the door with an intention to get down, as there was heavy rush. When the train was passing between Allur Road and Talamanchi railway stations at Km No.198/11-9 posts, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained head injury and died. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the incident is covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act and that the applicants are dependents of the deceased. It is stated that the Guard of train No.6003 mail reported that while passing the train in between Alluru road and Talamanchili railway stations at Km.196/33, the train was stopped due to alarm chain pulling and on enquiry, he was informed by one P.Ramulu that his son Apparao fell down from the train, and the train was backed but could not find the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6003 Howrah-Chennai Mail, travelling from Chirala to Nellore on 05.07.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, no witnesses were examined but a photocopy of the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report was filed along with the written statement. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that since the deceased was standing on the foot board of the compartment, there was negligence on the part of the deceased; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives are not entitled to the compensation; that the applicants failed to produce the legal representative certificate from the competent authority and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that he was having a valid ticket to travel in the train; that Ex.A-7-Family Member Certificate is not denied or disputed by the railway administration and it shows that the applicants are the legal representatives of the deceased; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. With regard to the aspect of bona fide passenger is concerned, the applicants produced the original ticket – Ex.A-4 to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The ticket produced by the applicants is not shown to be invalid or incorrect ticket. Ex.A-7 Family Member Certificate is not denied or disputed before the Tribunal. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and the applicants are the legal representatives of the deceased. 12. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The dead body of the deceased was noticed by the railway officials by the side of the track. Police registered a case and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and after inquest, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The only ground taken by the railway administration is that the deceased was travelling in the train on the foot board and as such, there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and therefore, the legal representatives are not entitled to compensation. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because it is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 7th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.146 of 2009 Date:07.09.2011 AMD