THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.272 of 2010 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 21-12-2009 passed in O.A.A.No.290 of 2004, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), was allowed directing the appellant/Railways to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Meduri Ratna Kumari (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’). The appellant is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is averred in the application that on 20-07-2004 at 3.30 a.m. the deceased, her husband and her three sons, after purchasing Ticket No.14245 at Kovvur, to go to Tirupati, boarded Train No.474 Passenger; and, when the train reached Tirupati, the deceased while trying to get down from the train, fell down on the track due to sudden jerk of the train and died instantaneously. Hence, the claim application. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated in the written statement that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the enquiries made by DRM revealed that there was no one travelling with her because no information was received from any of the applicants. Further, as per the Deputy Station Superintendent, Tirupati, the train arrived at the platform at 3.00 a.m. and the diesel power was attached at 3.10 hrs. and the shunting Jamadar and the Points man released the formation at 3.25 hrs. and the rake started to move towards the yard at 3.30 hrs., and it was at that time the dead body was noticed on the track and no passenger informed about her falling from the train. The respondent further stated that the deceased died on account of her own negligence. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the Applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? 4. To what relief? During trial, on behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, decided the issues in favour of the applicants and directed the respondent-Railways to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award, and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the respondent-Railways preferred this appeal. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways submitted that since it is not established that the death of the deceased was due to falling down from the train and, moreover the injuries sustained by her were due to her own negligence, he prays to set aside the order of the Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition to be proved by the applicants is that there was an untoward incident 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 said train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then applicants are entitled for compensation. The respondent-railways has to resist the claim application that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, it is for the railways to plead and prove the same. There is no such evidence adduced by railways. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, AW1’s evidence is clear that he purchased ticket to travel in train No.474 and when train arrived at 3.30 a.m. at Tirupati, while his wife was getting down from Train, she accidentally fell down due to the sudden jerk of the Train in between platform and steps and, therefore, it is an untoward incident. Whereas, Ex.R1, which is the statement given by the Deputy Station Superintendent, Tirupati, goes to show that the body was lying inside the rails. Ex.R2-DRM report would clearly goes to show that it is a case of accidental death of a lady passenger. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, which would go to show that the deceased sustained severe injuries. The Doctor also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, which would go to show that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of the train accident. Head, hand and trunk got cut and separated from the body. Therefore, from the nature of cut injuries, it can be inferred that the deceased must have accidentally fallen from the moving train and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the applicants established the untoward accident, in which the deceased died. Coming to the aspect of bona fide passenger, the applicants produced Ex.A3-ticket, which shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The genuineness or correctness of Ex.A3 is not denied or disputed by the railway administration. The contention of the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. The plea of negligence is not available to the railway administration because Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under exceptions as provided in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any of the exceptions as provided under the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, had rightly granted compensation and the same does not need interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-08-2011 Prv