THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1084 OF 2008 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 31-01-2006 in O.A.A No.280 of 2002 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/- consequent upon the death of Golimi Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to pay the compensation amount less the amount of compensation under Workman Compensation Act paid within 60 days from the date of order, else interest at 6% p.a. shall accrue from the due date till payment. 2. Brief facts are that the deceased was working as Special Trolley man in Engineering Department of S.C.Railways, Vijayawada Division and had been to Vetapalem Railway Station on 17-06-2002 along with co-worker to take up line measurements. After completion of work, while he was returning by Train No.7405 Krishna Express and when the train was reaching Chirala Railway Station, the deceased who stood at the door had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train. Thereafter, he was referred to Area hospital and from there to Govt. Hospital, Guntur where he succumbed to injuries. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the deceased tried to get down from the train when it was entering on the platform slowly which act amounts to self inflicted injuries which was due to negligence and the applicants are not entitled to claim any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased Golimi Venkateswarlu? 2.Whether the deceased was on duty and travelling by 7405 Krishna Express from Vetapalem to Chirala on 17-06-2002 deemed to be a bonafide passenger under Section 124-A of Railways Act? 3.Whether the deceased sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Chirala Railway Station and succumbed to injuries in Govt. Hospital, Guntur.? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants A.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated supra. 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 there was negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train while it was in motion, that the applicants have already moved an application under Workman Compensation Act for compensation and hence, the appeal has to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the deceased was standing at the door and due to jerks, he accidentally fell down from the train, that the Tribunal after deducting the amount under Workman Compensation Act, rightly granted compensation for which the claimants are entitled and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. 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. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Though it is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for Railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, but during the course of evidence, it is clear from Ex.A4 that the deceased was on duty with a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. Therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling at the time of incident. 12. Coming to an untoward incident, it is the specific case of the applicants that the deceased was standing at the door to get down from the train, but due to sudden jerks, he fell down accidentally and died on the spot. Whereas it is the case of the Railways that the deceased due to his own negligence while trying to get down from the moving train, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train, 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 present case does not fall under any of the clauses as mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No doubt, the applicants are not entitled to prosecute two parrellel proceedings in respect of same cause of action, but at the same time the Tribunal having noticed that the compensation was granted under the Workman Compensation Act, ordered to deduct that amount from the compensation for which the claimants are entitled to. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the appeal. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 17-08-2011 Hsd