IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.390 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Jogi Yeshoda and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.01.2009, in O.A.A.No.340 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Jogi Ramesh (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 02.10.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and sons of the deceased; that on 02.10.2003, the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application and stated that there is no cause of action for the applicants, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) or Section 124-A of the Act; that the message given by the Station Superintendent, Vikarabad to Sub Inspector, Government Railway Police, Vikarabad on 02.10.2003 reveals that as per the information received, one male person aged about 35 years, while climbing into running train, had fallen down and come under the train and got killed near the name board of down platform No.1 and hence, the act of the deceased does not attract the provisions of Section 124-A and 123(c) of the Act, and that the said act is an exception to Section 124-A as the same would amount to self inflicted injury; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of train No.359 and the applicants are put to strict proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the applicants have not produced the journey ticket and even according to the Inquest Report, the deceased was not possessing the journey ticket and therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. 4. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. Railways also filed the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the applicants have not produced the ticket to show that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that due to the negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the railway track. The police, after coming to know about the incident, registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in a train accident. Similarly, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that due to several injuries sustained by the deceased, he died. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. 11. With regard to the aspect of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, A.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, was examined. She was travelling along with the deceased as on the date of incident. The presence of A.W.1 was neither disputed nor denied by the railway administration. As a matter of fact, the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report would clearly go to show that A.W.1 was travelling in the train along with the deceased on the fateful day of the incident. The evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that her husband purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of A.W.1. If the evidence of A.W.1 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the same. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination so as to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.1. That is the reason why the Tribunal placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.1. There are no other reasons to discard the evidence of A.W.1. Her evidence is very clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.390 of 2009 Date:28.09.2011 AMD