THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1499 OF 2008 19.10.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And V. Aswini & others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1499 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 29.11.2005 in O.A.A No.323 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of V. Chandrakant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2) The claimants filed O.A.A. stating that the deceased along with his brother V. Suryakanth and one Srikanth came to Hyderabad from Udgir on 28.06.1999 to purchase tailoring material and that on the same night the deceased left for Udgir and the other two persons stayed back at Hyderabad. However, all the three went to Kachiguda railway station to give send of to the deceased, who boarded train No.349 Kachiguda-Aurangabad passenger, that during the journey the deceased slipped and fell down from the train near Shankarpally railway station at KM No.40 up line and that due to his fall, he sustained cut injuries and he was sent to Gandhi Hospital by Dy.SS with the help of railway police, and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. 3) The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that there is discrepancy in the age of the deceased as per the record and the age noted in the application, that the Assistant Station Master’s version is that the injured, who was noticed at the spot, was not having any ticket, that the inquest report is also not clear as to the place of occurrence and that the incident must be due to criminal act on the part of the deceased and that the death might be due to the reasons not connected with fall from train and that the incident does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4) The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased V. Chandrakant? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.349 Kachiguda – Aurangabad passenger traveling from Kachiguda to Udgir on 28.06.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Shankarpally railway station? 4. To what relief?” 5) On behalf of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A8 are 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 respondents failed to produce the journey ticket to show that the deceased was a passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket and therefore the respondents/applicants are not entitled for compensation. 9) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants contended that AW.2 was present at the time when the deceased purchased the ticket and immediately after fall from the train, the Station Superintendent sent the injured to the hospital and at that time he has not verified whether the injured was having any ticket or not, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted compensation and that the said order needs no interference by this Court. 10) There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of 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 deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the railways want to resist the claim, it has to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the case of the railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11) Insofar as the aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, it is contended by the railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. But, the evidence of AW.2, who is the natural brother of AW.1, would clearly go to show that he went to the railway station along with the deceased and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and that himself and the deceased together purchased the tailoring material, which was evident from Ex.A4 cash bill issued by the owner of the shop in the name of the deceased. The evidence of AW.2 practically remained unchallenged. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of AW.2 to discredit or doubt his testimony. When the evidence of AW.2 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting his evidence. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of AW.2 that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket. 12) Coming to second aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. There cannot be any dispute that the applicants need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicants show that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even assuming for a moment that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the applicants. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13) Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 19-10-2011 ES