IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 749 OF 2006 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Muiliar Shanmugam and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 749 of 2006 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 01.03.2006, in O.A.A. No.179 of 2000 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 Mudliyar Murali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the order till the date of realization. 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 11.03.2000, while the deceased was boarding train No.6093, Janata Express, at Kagazagar Railway Station in order to go Balharsha, he had accidentally slipped and fell down and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the applicants filed two separate claim applications i.e., OAA. No.100/2000 and OAA.No.179/2000; that the claim application is filed to defraud the railways 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 Mudliar Murali? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6093 Janata Express traveling from Sirpurkagaznagar to Balharsha on 11.03.2000 as alleged? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief?” 6. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the claim application holding that the evidence of AW.2 is corroborating inquest findings during inquest and as well as Ex.A.4 the final report. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/railways. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident by falling from the running train; that if really the deceased falls from the running train, it may be due to negligence of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the investigation done by police would clearly go to show that the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train; that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. Though it is stated that the deceased died in an untoward incident, from the evidence it is clear that the incident had taken place on platform, near Railway Protection Force Station. A.W.2 is an eyewitness to the incident. He categorically stated that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the running train and died. The Deputy Superintendent sent a message at 11:10 hours after the departure of train No.6093. Ex.A.4 is the final report filed by police, which would clearly go to show that there was no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting the death of the deceased. Further, it is not the case of the railway administration that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest police found two tickets. Date of journey, place of commencement and place of destination have been specifically mentioned in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. When two requirements are satisfied, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and that order needs no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 01.03.2006 in O.A.A.No.179 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 YVL