IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 268 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Mutheneni Komuramma and others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 268 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.12.2008 in O.A.A. No.134 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants consequent on the death of M.Venkataiah @ Vekanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 08.08.2005 the deceased boarded train No.1405 Shirdi Express at Warangal in order to go to Khammam by purchasing journey ticket and when the deceased was travelling in the passenger train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train and received grievous injuries. Immediately after the incident, the Station Superintendent, Yelgur sent the deceased to MGM Hospital, Warangal in 7045 Express and while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claim application. 4. The appellant/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that enquiries reveled, no untoward incident had happened on that particular date; that the Guard of the train stated that the train arrived Yelgur Railway Station at 13:38 hours and left by 13:40 hours; that the Guard had not come across any such alleged incident; that the deceased was not holding ticket and therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train; that the incident does not come within the provisions of Section 123 ( c) (2) of the Railways Act and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.1405 Shirdi Express travelling from Warangal to Khammam on 08.08.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W and Exs.R1 to R4 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/railways. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation, as they failed to establish the case; police did not seize any ticket from the dead body of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that after falling from the running train, the deceased was dragged to a considerable distance and in that process the ticket might have been lost; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), 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 passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to in Section 124 A of the Act. 11. Section 124A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. It is not in dispute that the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train and died. Ex.R.4-is the DRM’s Report, which would clearly go to show that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the running train and died. Therefore, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c ) of the Act. Even if there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation. The defences available to the Railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. Therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. With regard to the ticket, police filed Ex.A-4 final report, would clearly go to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger and it was an accidental fall. It is not in dispute that deceased was dragged to a considerable distance and so, loosing of the ticket in that process after the incident cannot be ruled out. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 23.12.2008 in O.A.A.No.134 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 18, 2011 YVL