THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.594 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 18.03.2008 in O.A.A.No.134 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Ramchandra Rao (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent and the respondents in the appeal are 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 05.03.2000, the deceased left his house at Tandur for immersion of the ashes of his sister-in-law in river Krishna. He boarded a passenger train to travel from Tandur to Wadi with journey ticket bearing No.58189. At Wadi, he purchased another ticket bearing No.09506 to travel from Wadi to Krishna and boarded train No.6011 express in general compartment. When the train reached Krishna Railway Station in the early hours of 06.03.2000, the deceased while alighting from the said train, fell down and sustained grievous injuries as there was heavy rush in the train. There was no lighting on platform and the whole area was pitch dark. The platform is of low level and the train started without whistle or announcement suddenly with jerk. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Mahaboobnagar Police registered a case under UDR No.10/2000. Hence, the claim petition. Applicant Nos.2 to 6 were subsequently impleaded as per orders, dated 04.07.2007. 4. The railways filed the written statement denying the averments made in the application and stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the express train; that as per the guard of train No.6011 express, no untoward incident happened on that day; that the dead body of a male person aged about 55 years was found lying on common loop line at KM 598/3-4 by a Keyman at 07:30 hours, much after the passing of 6011 express; that the death was not due to train accident as there is no eye-witness to the alleged fall of the deceased from the train; that the death might be due to some other reason since as per the applicants, the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in train No.6011 at 04:30 hours i.e., 11 hours prior to the autopsy conducted by the doctor; that whereas the post-mortem examination indicates that the death might have occurred about 24 hours earlier; that therefore, the railways are not liable to pay any compensation and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicant is the sole dependant of the deceased Ramachandra Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6011 express, travelling from Wadi to Krishna on his journey from Tandur to Krishna on 06.03.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Krishna railway station? 4. To what relief?” 6. To substantiate the case of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1 through her sworn affidavit and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to the sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident; that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket, and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/railways contended that the untoward incident as stated by the respondents/applicants has not been proved beyond preponderance of probability; that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death as he tried to get down from the moving train; that therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to compensation for the negligence on the part of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the two requirements as required under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) have been established; that therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation; that the order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. 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 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 train carrying passengers with 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 was not a bona fide passenger or that the case of railways falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not seriously disputed. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, had opined that the deceased would appear to have died about 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. It is only approximate time of death. Since AW.1 is not an eyewitness to the incident, she might not have known the actual time when the deceased got down from the running train. Therefore, the discrepancy is not so serious so as to deny the compensation to the respondents. 13. Insofar as the aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, is concerned, it is clear that during the course of inquest, the Investigating Officer found a valid ticket bearing No.09506 to travel from Wadi to Krishna by 6011 express train. The ticket as mentioned in the Inquest Report is not shown to be invalid ticket. Therefore, when the two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the respondents are entitled to compensation. 14. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of “No Fault Liability”. Whether there is a fault or no fault on the part of the deceased, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation provided the two requirements, namely, death of the deceased in an untoward incident and travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, are established. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 22, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.594 OF 2008 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Smt. Pramila Bai and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.594 OF 2008 September 22, 2011 MD