THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3727 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Applicants, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 08-07-2004 in O.A.A No.47 of 1999 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/- for the death Peddi Adilakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that on 03-05-1998 while the deceased was travelling from Vizianagaram to Vijayawada along with one Appala Raju after holding a ticket by train No.472 passenger and when the train stopped at Eluru Railway Station, they got down from the train and had breakfast and while boarding the train, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to jerk of the train and came between the platform and bogie and died instantaneously. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that while the deceased was attempted to board the running train in a rash and negligent manner, the incident had happened, that the injuries sustained by the deceased amounts to self-inflicted injuries and the inquest report shows that she fell down on account of her own negligence and carelessness and her own criminal act, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.472 passenger traveling from Vizianagaram to Vijayawada on 03-05-1998? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Eluru Railway Station? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were got marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, that while she was boarding the train, accidentally fell down and died, which is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Act and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that the ticket was not produced by the applicants, that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 11. Coming to the untoward incident, there is no dispute about the fact that when the train stopped at Eluru Railway Station, the deceased aged about 50 years got down from the compartment so as to wash face and to drink water and while the train was moving and when she was attempted to board the train, she accidentally fell down from the train and died. 12. Coming to bona fide passenger, the evidence of A.Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket. The inquest report also shows that the journey ticket was found with the deceased. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, from the evidence of A.Ws. 1 and 2 and the recitals in inquest report, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. 13. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Railways is that due to her own negligence, the incident had happened. Negligence on the part of the deceased is not a defence available to Railway Administration. 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 mentioned under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. As the deceased died in an untoward incident and she was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket, the applicants are entitled for compensation. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization and the applicants are equally entitled to receive the compensation. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 29-08-2011 Hsd