THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.766 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 22.04.2009 in O.A.A.No.317 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants, claiming compensation consequent on the death of Vijay (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 11.11.2004, the deceased with a view to go to Tandur on his personal work went to Dharur railway station, purchased a passenger journey ticket bearing No.87427 and boarded train No.360, Falaknuma – Gulbarga passenger in general compartment. When the train passed some distance, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train due to jerks of the train, sustained severe injuries and died. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123 (c) (2) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”); that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; that the applicants are put to strict proof to show that they are the dependants of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.360 Falaknuma – Gulbarga passenger travelling from Dharur to Tandur on 11.11.2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the Applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief?” 5. To substantiate the case of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident; that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket, and accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the respondents/applicants cannot derive any advantage and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that the case of railways falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. There is no dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are proved, the respondents/applicants are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124- A of the Act is in the nature of “No Fault Liability”. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Whether there is a fault or no fault on the part of the deceased, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation provided the two requirements under Section 124-A of the Act viz., (1) death of the deceased in an untoward incident and, (2) the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, are established. As the two requirements are proved, the respondents/applicants are entitled to compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 22, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.766 OF 2009 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND V. Ramadasu @ Reddiya Naik @ Ramuludasu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.766 OF 2009 September 22, 2011 MD