IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1465 OF 2008 Date:12.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, rep. By its General Manager, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad. ...Appellant And Chintapalli Satyavathi and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1465 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 11.08.2008 in O.A.A.No.309 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Sri Chintapalli Rajesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed by the Tribunal. 2. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 8.5.2003, the deceased, while travelling from Tadepalligudem to Vizianagaram by Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express with journey ticket No.31928862, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between Samalkot and Pithapuram Railway stations, as a result, suffered severe injuries and died on the spot. 3. The respondent railway administration filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the guard of Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express reported that there was no untoward incident of any body falling from his train between Samalkot and Pithapuram Railway stations on that day, that there is no proof that the said C. Rajesh fell down from Train No.2704 in between the said two stations, since only a dead body was found lying on the track, and that the applicants planted a journey ticket in the deceased’s pocket and designed the averments to claim unlawful compensation from the respondent. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Chitapalli Rajesh? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2704 Falaknuma Express travelling from Tadepalligudem to Vizianagaram on 8.5.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Samalkot and Pithapuram Railway Stations? 4. To what relief? 5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the railways 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The learned standing counsel for the appellant contends that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death as he tried to get down from the running train before it came to the halt and that the applicants have not produced the valid ticket to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act, is in the nature of no fault liability, and that therefore, the order under challenge needs no interference and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. 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 requirement precedent to be proved by the appellants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second requirement is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers 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. 10. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The deceased fell down from the train accidentally while he was getting down from the train, sustained injuries and consequently died. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. The doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased also opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is also not in dispute that during the course of inquest, the police noted the ticket number of the deceased. The ticket as shown in the inquest report is not shown to be incorrect or invalid ticket. Therefore, it is established that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 11. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Railways Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railways are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the evidence has rightly granted the compensation to the applicants. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date:12.10.2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1465 OF 2008 Date:12.10.2011 Gk