THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1293 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 30.07.2008 in O.A.A No.356 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Eega Ram Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2. The claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 17-6-2005, while the deceased was travelling in train No.418 Macherla Bhimavaram passenger with ticket No.05457 from Ramavarappadu to Bhimavaram Town, he slipped and fell down accidentally in between platform and the train due to speed and jerks of train, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stating that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 ( c ) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 ( for short ‘the Act’) and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways contended that the deceased boarded the wrong train and therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger in respect of the train in which he boarded, that due to his own negligence, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants contended that the deceased was having a valid ticket and when he tried to board the train, he accidentally slipped and sustained injuries and therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the 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 124-A of the Act, 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 train carrying passengers with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger or the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. On 17-6-2005 he purchased a journey ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers from Ramavarappadu to Bhimavaram town. He boarded the passenger train No.418. When the train reached Tarigoppula railway station and halted for some time for crossing of another train, the deceased got down for the purpose of drinking water and went to the other side of platform. In the meanwhile another passenger train No.114 Machilipatnam – Vijayawada arrived and halted on the other platform. At that station, both the platforms are at low level. When the train No.114 started, the deceased suddenly in a confused state of mind boarded the second train thinking that it is the train from which he got down and in that process, he accidentally slipped and fell down and sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. The police after coming to know about the incident, registered a case and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries all over the body. Ex.R1-Guard’s rough journal and Ex.R2- control message would clearly go to show that the deceased fallen from the running train. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is established beyond preponderance of probability. 10. Insofar as the aspect as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger not, there is no dispute that he purchased a valid ticket to travel in passenger train from Ramavarappadu to Bhimavaram. But when the train in which the deceased was traveling was halted at Tarigoppula railway station, he got down from the train and went to another platform so as to drink water. In the meanwhile, another train No.114 Machilipatnam– Vijayawada arrived and halted there for some time. When train No.114 started to move, at that point of time, the deceased being an illiterate and in confusive state of mind tried to board the wrong train, slipped and accidentally fell down. The act of the deceased amounts to some negligence because he has not tried to board the wrong train intentionally. Therefore, at best, the act of the deceased amounts to negligence, which is not intentional. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the applicants 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 applicants show that the deceased 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 deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone 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 anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the applicants. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 20-09-2011 rkk