IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1058 of 2009 Date:07.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Lava Patro and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 02.06.2009, in O.A.A.No.549 of 2005 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 Sections 124-A and 125 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 Krishna Chandra Patro (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 02.07.2005 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the parents and sisters of the deceased; that on 02.07.2005 evening, while the deceased along with his friends was travelling from Palasa to Eluru by train No.2703 Falaknama Express, he accidentally slipped and fell down at Chebrolu railway station in the early hours of 03.07.2005, sustained head injury and he was taken to a private hospital where he was declared head; that the applicants filed the original train journey ticket bearing No.20882 and supplementary charge ticket No.40172 on which the deceased was travelling. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application stating that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Act; that train No.2703 had no scheduled stop at Chebrolu railway station and that his fall was on account of his negligence in standing near the door, which was a self inflicted injury; that therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 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.2703 Express, travelling from Palasa to Eluru on 02.07.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was 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 to R-6. 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 since the deceased was standing at the foot board, there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives 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 conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. No doubt, the deceased was standing at the foot board at the time of incident, but at the same time, 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 it 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. Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 7th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1058 of 2009 Date:07.09.2011 AMD