THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1231 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 06-06-2008 in O.A.A No.180 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Bommagani Mallesham (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the said amount with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of order till payment. 2. Brief facts are that the deceased along with others went to Tirupati for having Darshan and after Darshan while returning from Tirupathi on 02-04-2002, the deceased accidentally fell down between Chintakani and Pandillapalli Railway Stations, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no eye witness with regard to falling of the deceased accidentally from the train and therefore, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. 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 traveling in a passenger train or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Ex.A4 is the copy of ticket. The ticket was not shown to be incorrect or invalid. 8. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways is that due to negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration because the defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 19-09-2011 Hsd