THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 64 of 2009 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 17-10-2008 in O.A.A.No.291 of 2004, 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 26-11-2004, the deceased-K.Rajesh Kumar Reddy @ Rajesh Reddy purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.351 at Secunderabad to go to Tenali and soon after it moved, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants who are parents of the deceased filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the fall of the deceased was on account of his own negligence and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 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 of train No.352 passenger traveling from Secundeabad to Tenali on 26-11-2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said 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 30 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of that order till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Union of India has filed this appeal. 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 contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the compensation in view of the laches committed by the deceased. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting by his death is not available to the railway administration under the Act and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of 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 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 any one of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to the severe injuries sustained in the accidental fall. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of arguments that the deceased fell from the train due to the negligence of the deceased resulting in his death, it will not have any effect or impact on the compensation payable under Section 124A of the Act. 11. The defence of 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. 12. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr