THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.612 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2006 passed in O.A.A.No.307 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- form the respondent for the death of one P.V.S.V. Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from a train, was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 09.09.2001 the deceased with a view to go to Kakinada, boarded Visakha Express at Palasa Railway Station and fell down and died of severe injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence the claimants who are claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the respondent. 3 The respondent (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement denying the case of the applicants stating that the fall of the deceased is not an untoward incident of accidental fall and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and hence 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 Pammeda Veera Satya Vara Prasad? ii. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train Visakha Express, travelling from Palasa to Samalkot on 9.9.2001? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Palasa Railway Station? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the first appellant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the appellants. On behalf of the respondent the Guard of the train was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 was marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition observing that the injuries sustained by the deceased are not due to an accidental fall but the same are sustained by the deceased due to his own negligence and as such the conduct of the deceased cannot be held to be an untoward incident U/s. 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct and valid? 8 The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was holding a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train and hence the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation to the appellant and therefore he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent (Railways) contended that since the deceased tried to board the running train it can be said to be a self inflicted injuries within the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and therefore the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants and that the Tribunal after having assessed the entire evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants and that order needs no interference and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death, the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 11 It is not in dispute that the deceased died in untoward incident. The police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to Postmortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 12 During the course of inquest, the police seized a ticket from the wearing apparel of the deceased to travel from Palasa to Samalkot bearing No.58425 as mentioned in the inquest report. The ticket number as mentioned in the inquest report is not shown to be incorrect or false. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bonafide passenger. The ground on which the Tribunal dismissed the application was that the deceased attempted to board the train No.7616, which was in motion and therefore it amounts to self inflicted injury, which comes under the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In order to establish that the deceased sustained injuries by self infliction, there must be an intention on the part of the deceased or injured so as to sustain some injuries. It is not the case where the deceased intentionally tried to board the running train so as to sustain some injuries. His intention is to board the train to go to the destination. AT best in the circumstances of the case, there was some negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train. The defence of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. Therefore, unless the case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, Railways cannot deny the compensation. Therefore, the observations of the Tribunal that it is a case of self infliction cannot be accepted because it is not the case of the Railway Administration that the deceased with an intention to sustain injuries tried to board the running train. Hence the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. 13 In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Out of the said compensation the first appellant is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- and the appellants 2 and 3 each are entitled to Rs.90,000/- and the appellants 4 and 5 each are entitled to Rs.35,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this award till realization. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 08.09.2011 Kvsn