THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.925 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.06.2011 passed in O.A.A.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one P. Lakshmi Narayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 16.07.2007 the deceased and his wife visited their relatives in Secunderabad and in return journey they all went to Sitaphalmandi railway station and purchased a combined ticket No.39572922 to go to Jadcherla and boarded the train No. 535 Secunderabad – Kurnool Passenger and while travelling in the said train, the deceased, due to speed and jerks of the train, suddenly slipped and fell down between Umdanagar and Timmapur railway stations and died on the spot. Hence, the respondents who are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the incident was a case of negligence on the part of the deceased and that it was a self inflicted injury. However, the appellant admitted that some passengers informed the Guard of the train that someone fell from the train and in turn he informed the same to the Assistant Station Master, Thimmapur. The appellant stated that the deceased could not have fallen from the train unless he was standing carelessly by the door and was responsible for his own death. It is further stated that the present case falls under the exception clause of the Railways Act whereunder the Railway Administration was not liable for self-inflicted injury and criminal act of the victim and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants. But no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within three months from the date of order Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that due to the negligence of the deceased only the accident had taken place, which is not an untoward incident and that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that there is no evidence adduced by the Railway Administration to show that there is negligence on the part of the deceased and hence applicants are entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. The Railway Administration wants to resist the claim that there was no untoward incident happened and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, then the burden is on the Railways. 11 Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of no fault liability. When a person falls accidentally from running train, it can be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under exceptions as provided in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever was adduced by the Railways so as to contend that the case falls under any one of the exceptions of section 124-A of the Act. 12 Insofar as the untoward incident is concerned, the plea taken by the appellant is that some person fell from the train and unless there was carelessness on the part of the deceased, he would not have fallen from the train. 13 The First Information Report and the Postmortem report would clearly go to show that the deceased while travelling in a passenger train had fallen accidentally. Finding of the ticket and fall of deceased from the train were admitted by the Divisional Railway Manager. Though it is stated that the deceased sustained those injuries by self infliction, but that has not been substantiated by any other evidence. For these reasons, the Tribunal had rightly held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he died in an untoward incident. No contra evidence was adduced by the Railway Administration to show that the deceased died as a result of self-inflicted injuries. 14 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 06.09.2011 Kvsn