IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.352 of 2009 Date:21.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Gope Narsamma and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 29.01.2009, in O.A.A.No.119 of 2003 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-A 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 Gope Balaiah (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 24.01.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that applicant No.1 is the husband and applicant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased; that on 24.01.2003, while the deceased was travelling from Kurnool to Jadcherla by train No.536 Kurnool Town-Secunderabad passenger holding ticket No.39685, accidentally fell down from the running train at Km.No.101/2-3 in between Mahabubnagar and Jadcherla railway stations, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the incident does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c)(2) or Section 124-A of the Act and that as per the enquiries, a male dead body was found lying by the Gangmate of Gan No.18 at Km.No.101/2-3 between Jadcherla and Mahabubnagar, who reported the same to the Station Master, Jadcherla, and put the applicants to strict proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased G.Balaiah, S/o.G.Nadpi Nagaiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.536 Kurnool Town-Secunderabad passenger travelling from Kurnool to Jadcherla on 24.01.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Mahaboobnagar and Jadcherla railway stations? 4. To what relief? 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence 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 due to the negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives 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 and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; 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 is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Ex.A-6 is the original ticket filed by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Once these two requirements are established beyond preponderance of probability, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, 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 the said provision 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 provided under 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 21st September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.352 of 2009 Date:21.09.2011 AMD