IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2011 Date:14.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, rep. By its General Manager, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad. ...Appellant And Asheem ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.08.2010 in O.A.A.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest for injuries sustained by him, in an untoward incident, was allowed in part by the Tribunal. 2. The applicant filed the claim application stating that he is a resident of Madnapur village in Mahboobnagar District. He went to Gadwal with his parents to visit relatives and on the return journey, they purchased a ticket on 26.6.2006 and boarded train 526 Dhone – Secunderabad passenger, and while travelling in it, the applicant suddenly slipped and fell down at Kotakadra station in between the platform and the train and his left leg was severely crushed and cut below the knee and his right foot was also crushed and his toes were lost. 3. The respondent railway administration filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that their enquiry revealed that a 15 year old hawker had fallen while trying to board a moving train, that the guard whet to the spot and found the injured unconscious, rendered first aid, handed him over to the GRP and gave a memo to the Station Superintendent, but the boy did not have a ticket and the Divisional Railway Manager’s report of the investigations carried out by the respondent stated that the boy was not a bonafide passenger, that the ticket mentioned in the application was a fake ticket and also rejected the claim stating that this was a case of self-inflicted injury. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the deceased (sick injured) was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident as allowed? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application in part granting compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of application till date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The learned standing counsel for the appellant contends that during the course of investigation by the police, the applicant did not produce any ticket to show that he was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in sustaining injuries and therefore granting of compensation is not sustainable and hence he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contends that Ex.A.1 is the original ticket which shows that the applicant is entitled to travel in a train carrying passengers and hence there are no grounds to interfere with order of the Tribunal and hence he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. 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 requirement precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the injured sustained; and the second requirement is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers 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. 10. It is not in dispute that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident. The police also registered a case and investigated into the case. No doubt during the course of investigation, the applicant has not produced any ticket before the police, but that does not mean that he was not a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. During the course of trial, the applicant produced Ex.A.1 ticket which is a valid ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers. When Ex.A.1 ticket is not shown to be an incorrect or invalid ticket, it cannot be said that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Therefore, it is established that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident and he was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 11. The defence of negligence on the part of the respondent/applicant resulting in sustaining injuries is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act, is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railways are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the evidence has rightly granted the compensation to the applicant. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date:14.10.2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2011 Date:14.10.2011 Gk