IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.716 of 2006. Date:09.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Y.Sowraiah and another. .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 12.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.251 of 2000 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 Section 124 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 Y.Amruthaiah (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 06.11.2000, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the parents of the deceased. On 06.11.2000, while the deceased was travelling from Nadikudi Railway station to Secunderabad along with his friend-V.Thomas by train No.7005 Tenali-Secunderabad Passenger as a bona fide passenger, he accidentally fell from running train at Chityal Railway Station, and died at the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways resisted the claim of the applicants and took the stand that as per the Guard’s version, there was no untoward incident to the said train at the relevant time; that in the absence of any acceptable evidence of travel of V.Thomas as co-passenger, his version cannot be accepted; that Section 156 of the Act prohibits travel of passengers near the door of the compartment, and so, requested to reject the claim of the applicants. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Yadpalli Amrutaiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7005 Tenali-Secunderabad Nagarjuna express travelling from Nadikudi to Secunderabad on 06.11.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Chityla railway station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 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 he 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 there was negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, 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 deceased died in an untoward incident; that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration 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 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 travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that he is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. When these two aspects are established beyond preponderance of probability, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to the compensation. The only defence taken by the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. 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 it is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is untenable and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 9th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.716 of 2006 Date:09.09.2011 AMD