IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.292 of 2006. Date:09.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Secunderabad/Calcutta. ..Appellant/Respondent And A.Rama Rao and others. .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 24.08.2005, in O.A.A.No.19 of 1999 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-A and 125 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 A.Narsinga Rao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 04.05.1997, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the father, mother and wife respectively, of the deceased. On 04.05.1997, the deceased purchased a journey ticket to travel from Visakhapatnam to Bobbili along with his friend and boarded train No.DMU 238 Visakhapatnam – Rayagada passenger in general compartment at Visakhapatnam and while travelling, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train at Km.419/0 between Donkinavalasa and Bobbili Railway Stations, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that the burden is on the applicants to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death of the deceased was due to the untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. 4. 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. 5. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that due to the negligence of the deceased, the untoward incident happened and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that 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. 8. 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. 9. There is no dispute about the taking place of untoward incident and similarly, there is no dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket from Visakhapatnam to Rayagada on the date of incident. The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that there is negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and therefore, the legal representatives are not entitled for compensation. 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. 10. 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.292 of 2006 Date:09.09.2011 AMD