IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.427 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And M.Ratna Kumari and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 24.12.2008, in O.A.A.No.140 of 2004 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 Sections 124-A and 125 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 Mannava Ratnam (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 05.05.2004, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and daughters of the deceased; that on 05.05.2004, the deceased went to Chirala Railway station at about 22.00 hours, purchased a journey ticket to travel from Chirala to Tenali, boarded train No.2763 Padmavathi Express and as there was heavy rush of passengers, while trying to enter inside the compartment, the train started suddenly with a jerk, as a result of which, he fell down accidentally from the train and the train ran over his legs resulting in grievous injuries and death; and that the journey ticket was lost at the time of the accident. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application stating that in the absence of filing any journey ticket by the applicants, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger; that as per the inquest report, while the deceased was trying to board the running train, accidentally fallen down, which is a criminal act and the injuries sustained thereof are self inflicted injuries for which the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation; that as per their enquiries, the deceased was a banana vendor at Chirala railway station and he might have fallen down from the train while selling bananas in the compartment; that the Station Superintendent, Chirala railway station reported at about 23.20 hours that the passengers reported him that a male person aged about 35 years was run over and killed by 2763 Express at the north end of platform No.3 of Chirala Railway Station. 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 the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and 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 no eye witness was examined to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that due to the negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened; 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 injuries sustained by the deceased would clearly go to show that he accidentally had fallen down from the running train, sustained injuries and died and hence, the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; 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 was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Though it is stated that no eye witness was examined to show that the deceased had fallen from a running train, the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the train accident. Similarly, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries all over the body. The dead body was found by the side of the track, as the deceased tried to board the running train. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. 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. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 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.427 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 AMD