THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A. No.1179 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 04-04-2006 in O.A.A.No.99 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 06-10-2001, the deceased-Kukkala Srinivasa Rao purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.7047 at Rajahmundry to go to Tadepalligudem and soon after it moved, due to jerks, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants have filed this application under Section 16 of the R.C.T. Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondent-railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and in the absence of any report of an untoward incident, the fall of the deceased, if at all, may be due to his own negligent and rash act and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the Act. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 60 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- railways and the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants and perused the record. 7. The only ground taken by the learned counsel of the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and therefore, he prays to set aside the award. 5. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 8. The ground taken by the railways is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he was standing at door of the compartment. The defence of the negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the Railway administration under the Act, as the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the present case falls under any one of those exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not the case of the Railways that the death of the deceased was a case of suicide or a result of self inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he died due to any natural cause. His falling down from the train carrying passengers is, thus, clearly accidental. 9. Though the railway administration has taken a plea that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, but during the course of trial, the applicants produced the ticket which is not shown to be as invalid. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it can be safely inferred that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers. 10. There are no grounds to interfere with the award granted by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 27, 2011 kvr