IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 561 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Kaneez Fathima and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 561 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-railways challenging the order dated 24.02.2009 in O.A.A. No.314 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the respondents-applicants was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The respondents-applicants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased M.A.Wahid Anwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.2747 at Nalgonda Station while traveling from Nalgonda to Secunderabad. 3. The appellant-railways filed its written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stating that the claim of the applicants has to be rejected on the ground that the deceased tried to board running train which was a dangerous act and compensation is not payable for self inflicted injury; that the applicants also to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and they are the legal heirs of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 4. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-railways. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that the incident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased as he tried to board running train; that the deceased was not having valid ticket to travel in the passenger train and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that the deceased was having a monthly season ticket and the same was available with the deceased at the to time of incident and the same was noted in the inquest report; that the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down while boarding the running train and it is an untoward incident and therefore, after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 8. It is not in dispute that while the deceased was boarding the train, he accidentally slipped from the train due to sudden jerk of the passenger train, sustained injuries and died. Therefore, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 ( c) of the Act. Even if there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation. The defences available to the Railway administration are enumerated under provisio to Section 124- A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under provisio to Section 124 A of the Act. Therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. With regard to the ticket, Ex.R.1-DRM’s Report, would clearly go to show that the deceased was having a season ticket to travel from Nalgonda to Secunderabad. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in the passenger train. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 05.03.2009 in O.A.A.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 12, 2011 YVL