IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.539 OF 2009 Date:21.09.2011 Between:- Union of India ...Appellant And M.Suvarchala and others. ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.539 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 24.02.2009, in O.A.A.No.198 of 2007, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of M.Purnachandra Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the order till realization. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 28.04.2007 the deceased accompanied by his wife and sister-in-law in order go to Gudivada to the house of his brother-in-law Radhakrishna to attend a birthday function, went to Machilipatnam Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket bearing No.25183173 for three persons and boarded train No.114 from Machilipantam to Gudivada. When the train was leaving Machilipatnam Railway Station platform, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the said running train in between platform and the train and sustained severe multiple crush injuries. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam by the railway staff, where he died while undergoing treatment on 12.06.2007 at 4:45 PM. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that the deceased, his wife and sister-in-law came to the station and the deceased purchased three tickets by paying Rs.27/-; that after boarding the train his wife informed him that the value of the ticket is Rs.24/- only, then immediately the deceased got down and rushed to the Booking Clerk for asking him for return of Rs.3/-; that after whistle of the train, the deceased came back and tried to board the running train and fell down from the train and as such the act of the deceased amounts to self inflicted injury; that the death was due to his own carelessness and negligence act; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are not dependents of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train as alleged? 4. To what relief?” 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were got marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased died as a result of an accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 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. 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 train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Railways contended that an untoward incident had happened due to negligence of the deceased, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was having a valid ticket and the same was seized by police. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and noted the number in the inquest report. Ex.A1 is the copy of ticket. The ticket was not shown to be incorrect or invalid. 11. It is the case of the Railway Administration that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration in view of the fact that 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 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. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 YVL