THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 983 of 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-railways challenging the order dated 21.06.2006 in O.A.A. No.144 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Naga Nooka Siva Santosh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an untoward incident was allowed. 2. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents and claimants 3 and 4 are the unmarried sisters of the deceased. The claimants’ version is that the deceased while travelling from Anakapalli to Tuni by train No.426 passenger, fallen down accidentally from running train near Elamanchili Railway Station and sustained severe injuries and while shifting to the hospital, expired on the way. Hence, the claim application. 3. The appellant-railways denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that as per their enquiry, a male passenger aged about 22 years who was travelling by train No. 426 passenger, on the foot steps, at the entrance was hit by the side electrical pole and died nearer to Elamanchili Railway Station and that the death of the deceased was due to negligence of the deceased only. Hence, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased K.Naga Nooka Siva Santosh? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.426 passenger travelling from Anakapalli to Tuni on 12.01.2002? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of an accidental fall from the train near Elamanchili Railway Station? 4) Whether the deceased was negligent in travelling on foot steps of the door and sustained injuries due to hit by electric pole and the injuries received by the deceased amounts to self inflicted injuries? 5) To what relief? 5. To substantiate their case, the first claimant was examined as AW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the railways no oral or documentary evidence was let in. 6. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling with a valid passenger ticket and therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased only as he was standing on the footboard of the compartment and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation and prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contended that as the death of the deceased is an untoward incident, the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, a person died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants’ falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. At the time of untoward incident, the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. As per the inquest report, the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the train. The post mortem report also reveals that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him due to fall from the compartment. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. If the case of the Railway administration falls under any one of the clauses of the above proviso, then only the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. No evidence was let in by Railways that the case falls under any one of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A of the Act. The negligence on the part of the deceased is not a defence available to the Railway administration by virtue of proviso to Section 124A of the Act as this Section is in the nature of no fault liability. It is not a case of self-inflicting injuries or the deceased attempting to commit suicide. Even if there is some negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to disallow the compensation to the claimants as the deceased has fallen from the running train accidentally and sustained injuries and therefore, it is an untoward incident happened while he was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt. 30.03.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 983 of 2006 Dt. 30.03.2011