THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 697 of 2008 JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-railways challenging the order dated 26.02.2008 in O.A.A. No.228 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the respondents-claimants was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the son, and claimant No.3 is the daughter, of Sri Gaddameedi Saranappa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). They have filed the claim petition 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/- for the death of the deceased caused in an untoward incident. The claimants’ version is that the deceased accompanied by applicant No.3 and his grand daughter Munni started from their residence Jettor on 28.12.1999 to go to Nalwar for attending the marriage of deceased’s elder brother’s daughter on 30.12.1999. Accordingly, they went up to Sedam by bus and purchased two tickets at Sedam Railway Station to go to Nalwar and boarded train No.6091- Link Express from Sedam to Nalwar. While travelling by the train, the deceased and his grand daughter have accidentally fell down from the running train at Malkhed Railway Station. The grand daughter fell on the platform and the deceased fell in between the platform and the train, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries whereas his grand daughter sustained minor injuries. Then the deceased was shifted to Wadi Government Hospital for treatment, after administering the first aid. The Medical Officer who attended on the deceased referred him to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Gulberga and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died in the hospital on 29.12.1999 at early hours. 3. The appellant-railways denied the averments made in the application and submitted that the deceased Sri Saranappa accompanied by his daughter and grand daughter was travelling from Sedam to Nalwar by 6091 Link Express after purchasing the tickets, that the deceased and his grand daughter by name Munni, fell from the running train at Malkhed Railway Station. Hence, it is clear that the deceased had not fallen from the train accidentally and that it is a case of suicide or attempt to commit suicide and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Was Gaddamedi Saranappa a bona fide passenger by train No.6091 Link Express train on 28.12.1999 as alleged? 2) Are the Applicants the only dependents of the deceased? 3) Whether the death of G.Saranappa was a result of an untoward incident as per Section 123 (c) of Railways Act? 4) Are the Applicants entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent? 5) To what relief and costs? 5. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-railways contended that it is not a case of untoward incident, and that due to the negligence of the deceased only, the incident had taken place, and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contended that the deceased had fallen from the running train accidentally and considering all the aspects of the case, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. 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, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling 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 Section 124-A of the Act. 9. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not seriously disputed. At the time of untoward incident, the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. As per Inquest Report (Ex.A4), the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the train. The post mortem report also shows that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of railway accident. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. If any one of the defences of the railway administration falls under any one of the clauses of the above proviso, then only the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The negligence on the part of the deceased is not a defence available to the railway administration by virtue of proviso to 124A of the Act. 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 accidentally to the claimants as the deceased had fallen in between the platform and the compartment accidentally and sustained injuries and therefore, it is an untoward incident happened while he was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. 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. 697 of 2008 Dt. 30.03.2011