IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.540 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Y.Sudhakara Rao and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 10.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.245 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Yedluri Audi Babu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 28.09.2004, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the parents of the deceased; that the deceased was studying second year B.A. at A.B.M. College, Ongole and as his family was very poor, to support his family and to meet the educational expenses, he used to do coolie work in the leisure time by supplying samosas to the retailers at Chinnaganjam, Vetapalem, Chirala by purchasing the same in wholesale market at Ongole; that on 28.09.2004, after purchasing samosas at Ongole, he came to the railway station, purchased a journey ticket between Ongole and Chirala and boarded train No.473 passenger in the morning hours; that when the train reached Chinnaganjam railway station at about 8.40 a.m., he got down from the train with a view to supply the boxes of samosas to the dealers, who were waiting at the platform, and after supplying the samosas, he boarded the train at about 8.40 a.m. and suddenly, the train started with a jerk as a result of which, he slipped and fell down from the train and died. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the enquiries with Guard of train No.473 passenger revealed that the train reached Chinaganjam at 08.26 hours and left at 08.28 hours as per schedule. On clearance of starter, ringing the station bell and whistling to alert the passengers, gave starting signal to the driver and the driver, after whistling, started the train and moved within a few seconds. The train came to stop due to ACP and the Guard was informed that one person attempted to enter the train in motion, fell down and was run over and on verification, ticket was not found with the person fallen and the person appears to be samosa vendor. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the alleged incident was caused by criminal acts of the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled to pay any compensation to the applicants. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.473 passenger travelling from Ongole to Chirala on 28.09.2004? 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 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that there is negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the same provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 26th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.540 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 AMD