IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.843 of 2008 Date:15.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Manda Nagendra and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 09.05.2008, in O.A.A.No.304 of 2002 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, 124-A and 125(2) 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 Manda Bala Krishna (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 05.03.2001 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife, sons and mother respectively of the deceased; that on 05.03.2001, the deceased, with a view to go to Kakinada, boarded Shirdi Express train at Khammam Railway Station, and due to heavy rush of passengers, as he was unable to enter inside, stood near the door of the compartment; that when the train started suddenly, he slipped and fell down resulting in cut off both the legs and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries; and that the journey ticket was lost in the incident. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the journey ticket was neither produced nor at least mentioned in the inquest report; that there was no incident of accidental fall of any passenger at Khammam Railway Station and even the Guard of train No.1405 express of 05.03.2001 reported that no person or any passenger informed him about the fall of any passenger from his train, and that it was not a case of accidental fall from train in an untoward incident, and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant(s) is/are sole dependent(s) of the deceased? 2. Whether on 05.03.2001, the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was 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 appellants/ Railways contended that the respondents/applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as they failed to produce a valid ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers; that due to the negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened, and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to 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 A.W.2 has witnessed the deceased purchasing a ticket and boarding the train, and the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged, and therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration; that 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 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 applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened and the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. There is no dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident, as both legs were found cut in the incident and he was immediately shifted to the hospital. The police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Even the railway administration is not denying or disputing about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 12. Next aspect of the case to be considered is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with a valid ticket or not. No doubt, the initial burden is on the respondents/applicants to establish that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. No doubt, the ticket has not been produced by the applicants. A.W.2 is a witness, who was working as Co-Driver along with the deceased, deposed that he went to the station along with the deceased and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the train. The evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. If the evidence of A.W.2 is to be accepted, it is clear that the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train. In view of the fact that the deceased has fallen from the train and both of his legs were cut, and immediately, shifted to the hospital, the possibility of losing the ticket after the incident cannot be ruled out. Since the Tribunal, after recording the reasons, placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2, there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is to be put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to accept his evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 13. Coming to the negligence aspect, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death 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 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. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.843 of 2008 Date:15.09.2011 AMD