IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.677 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And B.Rajarajeswari and others. .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 11.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.35 of 2004 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 and 124-A 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 Boda Sambasiva Rao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 25.09.2003 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: Respondents/applicants are the wife and two sons of the deceased. On 25.09.2003, while the deceased was travelling from Tenali to Kavali by train No.478 passenger by holding a second class journey ticket bearing No.0681594, due to the jerks of the train, at Kavali Railway Station, he accidentally slipped and fell down, sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. He was shifted to Area Hospital, Kavali and thereafter, to Government Headquarters Hospital and later, to Vijaya Hospital, Super Speciality Centre, Nellore, where he died on 21.11.2003 while undergoing treatment. 3. The appellant/Railways filed the written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the incident took place as the deceased tried to detrain from the running train before its complete arrival at Kavali station and that the death was due to his own carelessness and negligent act. As per the medical reports, the deceased was admitted in Vijaya Hospital, Nellore on 26.09.2003, discharged on 06.10.2003, again admitted on 08.10.2003 for further treatment and got fully recovered. He had chest pain on 21.11.2003 at 1.00 p.m. and though he was given treatment, he expired at 2.30 p.m. The death was not due to the injuries caused due to the fall from train but due to chest pain and cardiac problem and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.478 passenger travelling from Tenali to Kavali on 25.09.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-18 were marked. On behalf of the railways, no witnesses were examined but got marked Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, granted compensation. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondents failed to establish that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the railway accident; that due to the negligence of the deceased, the incident took place and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the evidence of Doctor would clearly go to show that because of amputation of both legs only, the deceased died but not due to any other ailment; that the ground of defence of negligence on the part of the deceased 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 prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to the proviso under Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Insofar as the incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased has fallen from the running train accidentally and he was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the railway administration does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The negligence, if any, on the part of the deceased cannot be a ground to disentitle the applicants to receive the compensation, but the question is whether the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the course of untoward incident. Three months after the incident, the deceased died. It is not in dispute that both legs have been amputated on account of the accident. The cause of the death, as stated by the Doctor, was due to the amputation of both legs and not due to other ailments or natural death. Therefore, there is a nexus between the injuries and the death. Exs.A-8 to A-15, which are Advocate Commissioner’s report, would clearly go to show that the Doctor has categorically stated that the death is a consequence of the injury sustained by the deceased. 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. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.677 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 AMD