IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1017 of 2009 Date:15.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And M.Mahadevi and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 03.07.2009, in O.A.A.No.251 of 2004 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 M.Narasimhulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 12.11.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and children of the deceased; that on 12.11.2003, while the deceased was travelling from Tandoor to Kurkunta by train No.330 Hyderabad – Pune passenger holding ticket bearing No.13378910, accidentally fell from the train and died. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Act; that as per the Station Master, Kurkunta, one male dead body was found at Kurkunta yard at Km No.45/3-4 on up main line and the same was reported to Government Railway Police, Wadi; that the body was noticed six hours after departure of the train and that in that busy section, it would not go unnoticed if it was a fall from the train and in the circumstances, it is not a case of accidental fall from the train and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the applicants are not dependents of the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.330 Hyderabad-Pune passenger travelling from Tandoor to Kurkunta on 12.11.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. 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 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 the applicants failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that before the train came to halt in the station, the deceased tried to get down from the running train resulting in the fall leading to his death and due to his negligence only, the incident had happened and therefore, the legal heirs are not entitled to any 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 police seized the ticket during the course of inquest and the ticket number has been duly mentioned in the inquest report; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration; 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 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. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The deceased had fallen from the running train, sustained injuries and died. The dead body was noticed by the Keyman two or three hours after the train left. The dead body was found by the side of the track, which suggests that there was an untoward incident. Even the railway administration is not denying or disputing about the untoward incident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the ticket had not been produced by the applicants as it was seized by police, the deceased cannot be said to be a passenger with a valid ticket. But during the course of inquest, the Investigating Officer seized the ticket from the body of the deceased and noted the number of the ticket in one of the columns of the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible in evidence. Therefore, if really the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the Investigating Officer would not have noticed the ticket on the body of the deceased. Therefore, from the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, 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. 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 15th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1017 of 2009 Date:15.09.2011 AMD