THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1228 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.110 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants / claimants seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the death of one Baruguru Chinnaiah Chetti (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 31.10.2004 while the deceased was travelling in Train No. 7209 Seshadri Express from Tirupathi to Vijayawada with ticket No.20654041, accidentally fell down from the said train at Satyanarayanapuram while standing at the door of the compartment and died on the spot. Hence, the appellants who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The respondent (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that a licensed coolie named L.Premanandam had stated that the deceased jumped out of the train No.7209 on the platform and that the deceased stated to the coolie that he had a ticket and was travelling from Tirupathi to Vijayawada and that since he had a ticket only to Vijayawada, Satyanarayanapuram was beyond Vijayawada where the train had no scheduled stop, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the injury is self inflicted injury by jumping out of a moving train and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? and iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, one witness was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the apellants/claimants. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined, but it produced the DRM report, which was unmarked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that he met his death on account of a fall from a moving train by trying to get down at a station where it was not a scheduled halt and thereby committed self inflicted injury. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the appellants / claimants are entitled to compensation? 8 The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during inquest, the police found a ticket on the body of the deceased which goes to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that later he died. He further contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased jumped from the running train and that he did not die in an untoward incident and therefore he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 9 On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the respondent (Railways) contended that in Ex.A.1 statement as well as the DRM report would clearly go to show that due to his own negligence by jumping from the compartment of the running train only the deceased died and that because of his negligence only the accident had taken place and for the laches on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased cannot derive any advantage and therefore considering these aspects the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) two requirements are to be satisfied viz., there was an untoward incident happened; and in that incident the deceased, who was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket, died. When these two requirements are proved or established, the claimants are entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, they can show that the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not in dispute that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. 11 Basing on the report given by the Superintendent of the Railway Station, the police registered a case. It is mentioned in the FIR that a ticket bearing No.20654041 to travel from Tirupathi to Vijayawada was found on the body of the deceased. That ticket as mentioned in the FIR was not shown to be invalid or incorrect ticket. Further, A.W.1 who is the son of the deceased went to the railway station and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and basing on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having a valid ticket to travel up to Vijayawada. That finding has become final in view of the fact that no appeal has been filed by the railways nor any cross objections preferred. In view of the fact that at the earliest point of time the ticket number has been noted in the FIR, it can safely be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 12 Insofar as the aspect of untoward incident is concerned, the case of the applicants is that the deceased fell accidentally from the compartment and sustained injuries and later died. The Railway Administration relied upon the recitals in Ex.A.1 and the report of the DRM. As per Ex.A.1, while the train was passing at Satyanarayanapuram railway station, the deceased jumped from the train and the DRM report would go to show that one person Premanandam saw the deceased jumping out of the running train. But the DRM report was not marked in the Tribunal. Even the person who saw the deceased jumping out of the train and who set the criminal law into motion was not examined before the Tribunal to show that the deceased jumped from the compartment and met with the accident. The specific case of the applicants is that the deceased had fallen from the compartment accidentally. So in those circumstances, even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in jumping from the train when it was moving slowly, it cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased because the defence of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under exceptions as mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided in that proviso. Therefore, the untoward incident in which the deceased died is established beyond preponderance of probabilities and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Out of the said compensation, the first claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs and the claimants 2 to 6 each are entitled to Rs.40,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of this award till the date of realization. 13 The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 06.09.2011 Kvsn