THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.1302 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.539 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was awarded to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one Pagidiman Gopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 01.12.2005 the deceased went to Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No.77429193 from Vijayawada to Guntakal, boarded the train No.D-121 Vijayawada – Guntur passenger in general compartment to go up to Guntur. The deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the said running train at K.9/0 near L.C. Gate No.5 between Mangalgiri and Nambur Railway Stations at 07.30 AM due to speed and jerks of the running train. As a result, both his legs got severely crushed and separated besides sustaining multiple injuries and died immediately thereafter at 9.00 AM on the same day. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 who are the wife and son of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railway) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that a level crossing gateman by name Shaik Vali saw the deceased falling down from running train No.121 while sitting on the foot board on 01.12.2005 at 7.15 AM at L.C. Gate No.5 between Nambur and Mangalgiri Railway Stations; and since the deceased was travelling on foot board which is prohibited, the death was due to his own negligence and it is not an untoward incident and hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.D- 121 Vijayawada – Guntur Passenger, travelling from Vijayawada to Guntur on 01.12.2005? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- v. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the appellant two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1&2 and Ex.R.1 was marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the copy of the order till payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was travelling in the train by sitting on the foot board and therefore due to his own negligence the incident had happened and hence the Railway Administration is not liable to pay the compensation to the applicants and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that negligence on the part of deceased is not a ground available to the Railway Administration, and if a person falls from a running train, it is an untoward incident and hence the claimants are entitled to the compensation and that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. There is no dispute about the deceased travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Therefore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 11 Coming to the negligence aspect, it is in the evidence on record that the deceased was sitting on the footboard of the compartment at the time of the incident. It is the case of the respondents that due to sudden jerk in the compartment he fell down accidentally. Negligence on the part of deceased is not defence available to Railway Administration under Section 124-A of the Railways Act (short ‘the Act’) because Section 124- A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If a person falls from a running train, it is an untoward incident unless the Railway Administration proves that its case falls under any one of the clauses enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the said categories mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased died in an untoward incident as he fell down accidentally from a running train. On this aspect, the applicants relied on an unreportable judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.1184 of 2003) wherein the apex Court at para No.9 held as under: “The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in Clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fall even after assuming everything in its favour.” 12 In view of the above principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the appeal has to be dismissed as there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 13 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J 11.08.2011 Kvsn