THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.71 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2009 made in O.A.A.No.113 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity} filed under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the death of the deceased Merla Yadagiri Narendra Muni Kumar, who died in train accident on 17.01.2002. 2. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under. The deceased while travelling by train No.7239 Simhadri express from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry on 17.01.2002 with a valid journey ticket accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Kovvur Railway station and sustained head injury and died. 3. The Railways filed its Written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) (2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act and further stated that ticket No.05771087 was issued on 17.01.2002 at 9.17 hrs from Vijayawada to Khammam for two adults for an amount of Rs.70/- in counter No.3. Since the ticket which the deceased was holding was issued from Vijayawada to Khammam for two persons, therefore, the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and the wrong ticket was planted for the purpose of claiming compensation from the railways and denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed. (1) Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the deceased Merla Yadagiri Narendra Muni Kumar? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7239 Simhadri express travelling from Vijayawada to Rajahmundry on 17.01.2002? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Kovvur Railway Station? (4) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 6. Considering the evidence and material on record, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation for the own negligence of the deceased. 9. For the purpose of compensation, as per proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied; (1) A person is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; and (2) He died in an untoward incident. With regard to the first requirement, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The applicants produced Ex.A4-original ticket and the same is not shown as invalid ticket. Coming to the second aspect, the only contention raised by the appellant is that due to the negligence of the deceased only the incident had taken place and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant need not prove negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicant shows that he accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the injured, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under any one of the defences available to the Railway Administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of Railway Administration falls under any one of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs. ____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 19th August 2011 RRB