IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1067 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Chippari Mondamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1067 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2006 in O.A.A.No.70 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Chippari Narasaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum till realization. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal 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 the claim application stating that on 04.07.1999 the deceased along with his wife, and sister boarded Bhagyanagar Express by purchasing three journey tickets in order to go from Odelu to Ravindrakhani. While they were travelling in the said train, the deceased had accidentally slipped, fell down and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the incident was not an untoward incident; that there was no untoward incident to the train in question; that there was alarm chain pulled at KM 255/03 and it was enquired by Guard and Driver of the train; that there was no information about fall by any of the eye witness; that a male dead body was sighted at 11:00 PM much later to the departure to the train; that the claim is fictitious and an after thought to gain compensation 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 the dependents of the deceased Chippari Narsaiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train Bhagyanagar Express travelling from Odelu to Ravindrakhani on 04.07.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Mancherial and Ravindrakhani? 4. To what relief? 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the railways failed to prove that the deceased had committed a negligence act to be attracted by exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act’). Challenging the same, the Railways filed the present appeal. 7. Heard. 8. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of 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 a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling 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. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Police after coming to know about the incident held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of conducting inquest, police noticed journey tickets and the same were specifically mentioned in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is not in dispute that the train was stopped as chain pulled at KM 255/03. The dead body of the deceased was sighted after departure of the train. Though it is admitted that he died in an untoward incident, the case of the railway administration is that there was some negligence on the part of the deceased. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liabililty’. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim, it must plead and establish that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the applicant No.1 is directed to implead her minor son in the Original Application and thereafter the minor son is entitled to withdraw the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL