IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1189 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Chennarapu Pentamma and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 06.08.2009, in O.A.A.No.111 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 Section 124-A 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 Chennarapu Anjaneyulu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 05.11.2004, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife, two sons and daughter of the deceased; that the deceased was a coolie, resident of Divitipalli village and he went to Delhi from his village three months prior to the accident on contract coolie and in return journey, left Delhi and reached Kachiguda Railway Station in the evening of 05.11.2004 to go to his native village, purchased a passenger journey ticket from Kachiguda to Mahbubnagar bearing No.02472971 and boarded train No.405 Secunderabad – Guntur passenger in a general compartment carrying his clothes bag; that while travelling, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at K.M.No.102/11-12 near Divitipally during night hours of 5.11.2004 due to speed, jolt and jerk of the said train, as a result of which, he sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that there was no information to the Guard about the alleged fall nor was there any incident of alarm chain pulling to the train and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased under Section 123(b) of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim 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.405 Secunderabad-Guntur passenger travelling from Kachiguda to Mahabubnagar on 05.11.2004? 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-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were got marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train and that he 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 there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants 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 and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the Railway administration; 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 requirements are to be satisfied. 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 the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, 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 the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. Even if it is to be assumed for the arguments sake that the deceased fell from the train carrying passengers due to the negligence of deceased resulting in his death, it will not have any effect or impact on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act. 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. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1189 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 AMD