IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1158 of 2008 Date: 14.09.2011 Between: Union of India .....Petitioner AND P. Suryanarayana and another ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1158 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 14.09.2005, in O.A.A.No.89 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Smt P. Sitamma, in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed by the Tribunal. 2. The applicants filed the claim application stating that the deceased came to Similiguda railway station on 13.3.2000 and purchased a geneal ticket bearing No.7799 for travel between Similiguda to S. Kota and boarded train No.2VK Kirandal – Visakhapatnam passenger. When the train stopped S. Kota Railway Station, while the deceased was getting down from the said train it suddenly started with jerk and as a result of which she fell down, sustained severe injuries, and died. 3. The respondent railways administration filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and the incident of fall is not an untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Act. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased P. Seethamma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2 VK Kirandal – Visakhaptnam passenger travelling from Similiguda to S. Kota on 13.3.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at S. Kota railway station as alleged? 4. To what relief? 5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the railways 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the deceased is trying to get down from the train, he fell down due to her negligence and that they have not produced the ticket to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to compensation. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Guard sent a message stating that the deceased was having a valid ticket and that a copy of the ticket was also produced before the Tribunal but the same was not marked, but that aspect has not been disputed and therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation to the applicants. 9. 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. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The deceased fell down from the train while she was getting down from the train, sustained injuries and consequently died. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by her. The doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased also opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by her. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in her death is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The present case does not fall under any one of the provisions. With regard to the valid ticket is concerned, the Guard of the train had sent a message to the Station Superintendent stating that the deceased was having a valid ticket No.07799. As a matter of fact, the applicants also filed copy of the ticket into the court. The said document was not marked. But the fact remains the Guard of the train himself sent a message stating that the deceased appears to be a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation to the applicants. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date:14.09.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1158 of 2008 Date: 14.09.2011 Gk.