IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.416 of 2008 Between: Union of India rep.by its General Manager, South Easterm Railways, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT And Smt Syed Munni and 7 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.416 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 11.03.2008 in O.A.A.No.196 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents herein claiming compensation for the death of the deceased who died in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to pay compensation with interest @9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The application was initially filed by the wife, three minor children and mother of Syed Mahboob (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for his death in an alleged untoward incident that happened on 13.4.2001 near Chegunta station, while traveling by train No.1013 Kurla-Combatore express. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased and 5th applicant in this case died during pendecny of the application. It is stated that on 12.4.2001, the deceased accompanied by his wife, three sons and mother boarded train No.1013 Kurla-Coimbatore express in general compartment duly purchasing second class ticket Nos.11876750 and 11876749 from Lokamaniya Tilak Terminus to Ananthapur and while traveling by the said train, he got down at Yadgir station on 13.4.2001 to fetch some food and after the train again started, they had their food. When the deceased went to the wash basin to wash his hands, he accidentally fell down from the train due to jerks and jolts of the train, as it was running at a high speed during that time. Though the applicants tried to stop the train, it did not stop but stopped only at Krishna Railway station, where they got down and informed station authorities and police. 4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement dated 26.07.2000 denying the averments made in the application stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not due to accidental fall from train in an untoward incident. They have pleaded that the deceased died due to his own criminal act of stretching out of the compartment so much as to be hit by a signal pole placed at a distance of nearly 2 feet from the foot board of the compartment and not due to accidental fall from train. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased a. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train 1013 Kurla-Coinbatore express, traveling from Lokamaniya Tilak Terminus to Anantpur on 13.4.2001? 2. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 4. To what relief? 6. The learned standing counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing near the door and leaning out of the compartment, when the train was moving and getting hit by starter signal pole at Chegunta Railway station and died as a result of the injuries sustained, and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased; that when the untoward incident and the bona fide passenger are established, the claimants are entitled to compensation; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Sec.124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the person died or sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Sec.124-A of the Act. 9. As per Ex.A.2, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident that took place on 13.4.2001 at Km.598/13-14 near Chegunta Railway Station due to fall from running train. The ticket produced by the applicants was not denied by the railways. The only ground taken by the railways is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing near the door of compartment in a running train, thereby exposing himself to danger, and hence the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. No evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to show that due to negligence on the part of the deceased only the untoward incident had occurred. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased it cannot be a ground to deny damages to dependants of the deceased, no such defence is available to the railway administration as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided above, and so, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 16.09.2011 Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.416 of 2008 Date: 16.9.2011 Gk.