IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.871 OF 2011 Between : Md.Nasreen Begum and another. ... APPELLANTS A N D The Union of India. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.871 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 14.11.2008, in O.A.A.No.339 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Md.Usman (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the applicants, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, 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 O.A.A. stating that, on 14.11.2002, while the deceased was boarding train No.7048 Gowthami Express on platform No.1 at Samalkot Railway Station, he slipped and fell down from the train and died. The deceased was holding season ticket No.16612741 worth Rs.340/- from Anakapalli to Samalkot valid from 09.11.2002 to 08.12.2002. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the season ticket Anakapalli to Samalkot mentioned in the application has not been filed along with the claim application; that even assuming that it is a valid ticket, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as he boarded train No.7048 Express which was going to Kakinada; that the season ticket mentioned by the applicants was valid upto Samalkot and the deceased boarded a train going towards Kakinada, he is not a bona fide passenger; that as per Guard of train No.7048 Express, the train arrived Samalkot at 6:46 Hours and left at 6:51 hours; that suddenly the deceased rushed on platform No.1 and attempted to enter the moving train, slipped and fell down between the platform and the moving train; that when the deceased tried to catch a moving train, he fell down and died, which amounts to self inflicted injury, which is an exception in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); that it is not a case of accidental fall from the passenger train and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased? 2. Whether on 14.11.2002 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 ( c) of the Railways Act? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and so the dependents of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation as per the Rules. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident; that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the deceased; that negligence on the part of the deceased is not a ground for dismissing the claim application and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that as there was negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation; that the Tribunal after recording the reasons rightly dismissed the claim application and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 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 deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the deceased was having season ticket bearing No. 16612741 to travel from Anakapalli to Samalkot. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger in respect of train No.7048, but while boarding the train at Samalkot, the untoward incident had happened. After the train leaves the station, then the deceased would become an unauthorized passenger. In view of the fact that the incident had taken place in the Station itself, it can be said that deceased was a bona fide passenger. The dead body of the deceased was lying by the side of the track. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground of negligence. Section 124A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’ and the deceased need not prove the negligence on the part of the Railway administration. If the applicants show that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if there is negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the train, that cannot be a ground for not granting compensation to applicants. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present facts of the case does not fall under any one of the exceptions in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act so as to dismiss the claim application. Therefore, non-granting of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased on the ground of negligence is untenable. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.11.2008 in O.A.A.No.339 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Out of the same, petitioner No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- each. The petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 27, 2011 YVL