THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1178 OF 2009 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 13-08-2009 in O.A.A No.297 of 2005 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 S. Abdul Ahmed (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 order and thereafter at 9% p.a. till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that on 04-11-2004 while the deceased was travelling from Renugunta to Railway Kodur in train No.7430 Rayalaseema Express in general compartment to meet his friend in Railway Kodur for a discussion with him about a job at abroad, due to jerks and jolts of the train, he fell down and died. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that no untoward incident had happened and there was no alarm chain pulling, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7430 Rayalaseema Express traveling from Renugunta to Kodur on 04-11-2004? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 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 claim 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. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 9. 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. 10. Insofar as bona fide passenger is concerned, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. A.W.2 who is the brother of the deceased was examined to show that he accompanied the deceased to Railway Station and he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the train. The presence of A.W.2 at the time of deceased purchasing the ticket remained unchallenged. His presence has been specifically mentioned in the inquest report as the person who was present before the incident. There is no other reason for discarding the evidence of A.W.2. As the presence of A.W.2 is established, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on his evidence. 11. Coming to the negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railways. The defences available to the Railways are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the exceptions as mentioned under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence, rightly granted 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: 24-08-2011 Hsd