IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2009 Between : Union of India ... APPELLANT A N D Thirunalli Sankaran and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 10.07.2009, in O.A.A.No.181 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of T.S.Sanjeevan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the amount within two months from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed claim application stating that the deceased after completing his training as BSF Jawan at Ranchi, started his journey on 23.03.2003 from Ranchi to Calicut along with five co- jawans by train No.8689 Express with reservation ticket bearing No.612-8713208 in coach No.S-6, berth No.14. While they were travelling in the said train, the deceased had accidentally slipped, fell down from the train on 24.03.2003 at Chirala Railway Station and sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Chirala and from there he was taken to Government Hospital, Guntur for better treatment and again the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Chennai on 25.03.2003, where he died while undergoing treatment on 26.03.2003. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c ) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); that as per TTE who worked in S-6 coach, mentioned in his statement that the pantry car staff witnessed one passenger while getting down from the moving train, fell down at Chirala Railway Station; that immediately the pantry car staff pulled the alarm chain and stopped the train; that the fall of the deceased was not in an untoward incident and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall. Challenging the same, the railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that due to negligence on the part of the deceased, the incident had happened and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to compensation; that the deceased was an employee in Army, the applicants were given some amount by the employer under whom the deceased was working and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to double benefit for the same incident and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration; that for the death of the deceased, the authorities granted some amount; that the applicants are entitled to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of 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 carrying with passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track, which was noticed by the Key man of the railways. Immediately after the incident, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. The Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries all over the body. Even the railway administration is also not denying or disputing about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 12. With regard to the second aspect, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or not, the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers. Ex.A.1- is the original ticket produced by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. As these two requirements are proved, it is need less to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. If the railway administration wants to resist the compensation payable to the applicants, it must plead and establish that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The facts of the present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 14. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/railways is that the applicants were already given benefit by the Government of India and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to double benefit in respect of same incident. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of this Court reported in Union of India V. V.M.Ranganadhan[1], wherein it is held thus: “The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon a Judgment of the then Mysore High Court i n Smt. Zaibunnisa V. The Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli (AIR 1965 Mysore 306). In that case, it was found that the claimant received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and thereafter, submitted a claim under the Railways Act. Such a claim was held to be barred. The facts, in the present case, are different. Therefore, the contention advanced by the appellant cannot be accepted.” In this case, there is no pleading and evidence that the applicants were paid compensation by Central Government of India or any other agency in terms of Section 128 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/railways on this aspect is untenable and devoid of merit. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 YVL [1] 2006 (5) ALT 719