IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1197 OF 2005 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Ayyamma @ Shanthamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1197 of 2005 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 08.09.2005 in O.A.A.No.43 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Kuruva Burma Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the order till realization. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed claim application stating that on 25.10.1999 the deceased along with one Seshappa boarded train No.7494 Balaji Express in order to go from Guntakal to Adoni, with a journey ticket. While they travelling in the said passenger train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train due to jerk and speed, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as no ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased, he cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger, and that the fall of the deceased cannot be brought within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); that the deceased was 60 years old at the time of the incident; that due to his negligence only the incident had occurred and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased Kuruva burma Reddy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7494 Balaji Express travelling from Guntakal to Adoni on 25.10.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Adoni? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. C.W.1 was examined and Ex.C.1 was got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the death of the deceased is due to an accidental fall from the train and within the scope of an untoward incident under Section 123 ( c) of the Act. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the railways. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration; that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket at Guntakal Railway Station; and therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passeners with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was noticed by the side of the track by the Key man of the train at KM 494/2-3. Immediately after the incident, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained all over the body. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is established beyond preponderance of probability. 12. With regard to bona fide passenger, no doubt, police did not find any ticket while conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased, but they examined A.W.2, who is said to be accompanied the deceased to the railway station and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket in the railway station. The contention of the applicants that the deceased had fallen from the running train and dragged to a considerable distance and in that process the ticket, might have been lost, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, merely, non finding of a ticket during the course of inquest, cannot be a ground to reject the case of the applicants stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Furthermore, A.W.2 is said to have accompanied the deceased to the railway station and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket. It is not in dispute that A.W.2 was examined by police during the course of inquest. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of purchasing the ticket by the deceased is not shown to be improbable. There is every possibility for A.W.2 to accompany along with the deceased to the railway station as they were business partners. Such is the case, the evidence of A.W.2 is rightly accepted by the Tribunal after recording some reasons. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. Once A.W.2 is found to be in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar or impediment in relying upon such evidence. Even in cross-examination of A.W.2 nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of A.W.2. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 that he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket at the railway station. 13. With regard to the negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the categories mentioned under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 YVL