THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.895 OF 2011 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 09-10-2009 in O.A.A No.298 of 2004 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 Billa Pratap (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to pay the said amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter at 9% p.a. till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that on 22-02-2004 the deceased went to Kadapa Station and purchased a ticket bearing No.08225029 for journey to Koduru and got into train No.7429 Rayalaseema Express. When Koduru arrived, due to sudden movement of the train, he slipped and fell down and died. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that SS/Koduru informed that a person had fallen from Train No.7497 and he was loaded into train No.7429 to shift him, but he was found dead. Hence, the incident if any happened concerning 7497 express but not 7429 express. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 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. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked. On behalf of Railways R.W. 1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. 6. 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. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that an untoward incident had happened due to negligence of the deceased, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train No.7429, that as the deceased had fallen from train No.7497, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track, which was noticed by the Station Superintendent. Admittedly, the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel. Ex.A1 is the copy of ticket. The ticket was not shown to be incorrect or invalid. 11. It is the case of the Railway Administration that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. 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:05-09-2011 Hsd