THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.422 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.85 of 2004 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 to 4 towards compensation for the death of one B.C.Viswanatha Gupta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 12.06.2003 the deceased boarded train No.6591 Humpi Express in general compartment with valid second class ticket and on the way to Hindupur, fell down accidentally from the train between Penukonda and Makkajipalli Railway Stations and died instantaneously on 13.06.2003. Hence, the respondents who are the wife, daughters and son 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 denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and as per the FIR, the message was issued by on duty Station Master Penukonda at about 8.00 AM to S.I. Government Railway Police, Hindupur that a Key Man of Gang No.7 of Penukonda Railway Station reported about a male dead body aged about 48 years lying on left side of the track at 7.45 AM at Km 137/500 – 600 at Penukonda Railway Station and that there is no eye witness to the alleged fall and also neither the Guard of the train No.6591 Express nor any other co- passenger of the train noticed the deceased travelling by the train are aware of the incident of falling of the deceased and hence, it is not a case of death of a bona fide passenger due to accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and therefore the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation and hence 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 train No.6591 Humpi Express travelling from Hindupur to Anantapur on 12.06.2003? 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, on the side of the applicants, two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Railway Administration no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 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 (Railways) to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of order, failing which it shall carry interst at 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of the order till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the order impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that because of the negligence on the part of the deceased only, he fell down from the running train and therefore for the lapses committed by the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to claim compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents contended that the plea of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration and that the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident and that he was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death, the applicants 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. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, its case has to fall under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 11 Insofar as the negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is concerned, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated 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 Railway Administration that their case falls under any one of the exceptions mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and that as it is also established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the applicants who are his legal representatives are entitled to compensation. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal on that aspect need no interference. 12 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 16.09.2011 GK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.422 of 2008 Date:16.9.2011 Gk