IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.219 of 2007. Date:16.09.2011 Between:- Mamidi Laxmi and 3 others. ..Appellants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Secunderabad. .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.219 of 2007. JUDGMENT:- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 18.08.2006, in O.A.A.No.190 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of M. Rama Kesava @ Kesava (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident, was dismissed. 2. The applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that the deceased was boarding the running train and in the process he slipped and was run over by the train as a result of which he died. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that the enquiries revealed that the incident was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and such act disentitles the applicants from claiming any compensation for such self inflicted injuries and that his death was due to his criminal act. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, dismissed the application of the applicants. Challenging the same, the applicants filed this appeal. 5. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the two requirements under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 are proved and that the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that in view of the fact that the untoward incident happened to be due to the negligence of the deceased, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to the compensation, that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 travelling in the passenger train 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. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger train. It is also not in dispute that the deceased is having a valid ticket while travelling in a passenger train. If two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wanted to resist the claim of the claimants on the ground that their case falls under any one of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the burden lies on the railways authority to establish that the case falls under any one of the exceptions. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions under provision to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration in as much as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of the no fault liability. Whether there is fault or no fault on the part of the deceased resulting in his death, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed directing the respondent/railways to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the appellants/applicants. Out of the said compensation amount, the first appellant/applicant is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-, the 2nd appellant/applicant is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- and the appellants/applicants 3 and 4 each are entitled to Rs.50,000/-. The share of appellant No.2, who is minor shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank, till he attains the majority. The amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at 9% p.a from the date of award till the date of realisation. No costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 16th September, 2011 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.219 of 2007 Date:16.09.2011 Gk.