IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.Nos.1489 of 2008 AND 1062 of 2009. Date:11.08.2011 C.M.A.No.1489 of 2008:- Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Petitioner And S.Anjaneya Rao and others. .. Respondents/Claimants And C.M.A.No.1062 of 2009:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And S.Odelu (died) L.Rs and others. .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, are directed against the common order, dated 25.11.2005, in O.A.A.Nos.291 of 1999 and 115 of 2000 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 Section 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 Sirikonda Durgamma in a railway accident that took place on 15.08.1999 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as follows: On 15.08.1999, the deceased S.Durgamma travelled by 321 passenger train from Ravindrakhani to Veerur along with her younger sister in II Class general compartment and during the journey, the deceased fell down from the train at KM No.242/11-12 between Bellampalli-Mandamarri and died. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the incident as untoward incident. The co-passenger said to have travelled did not inform about the incident and as per the applicants’ report, dated 15.08.1999, the F.I.R. was registered; that though the journey was a day journey, none could notice the fall of the deceased from the train; that the incident might be due to cross of the track; that the eye witnesses have seen the deceased standing at the door when the train was passing the village and perhaps, the deceased might have tried to get down and in such a case, for the negligent act, the railways cannot be fastened with liability. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Sirikonda Durgamma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.321 Up Ramagiri Passenger travelling from Ravindrakhani to Veerur on 15.08.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Bellampalli and Mandamarri Railway Stations? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/Railways, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of Exs.A-2 and A-5, came to conclusion holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, granted the compensation. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as she was sitting on the foot board and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; that the ticket purchased by the deceased is not a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that even if there is negligence on the part of the deceased, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation 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 under Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is seriously disputed by the railway administration that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The applicants produced Ex.A-5, a ticket to travel in a passenger train, which clearly goes to show that the deceased travelled in a passenger train. Furthermore, at the time of holding inquest, police noted number of the ticket in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the police during the course of investigation are admissible under law. There is no contrary evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that Ex.A-5 is a fabricated or not a valid ticket. Hence, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on Exs.A-2, A-5 and the evidence of A.W.2 in arriving at a conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 12. Coming to the untoward incident, the applicants need not prove that there was negligence on the part of the railway administration because Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If they show that the deceased had fallen from the running train and died in an untoward incident, it is sufficient. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the railways does not fall under anyone of the exceptions mentioned therein. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased died in an untoward incident as she fell down accidentally from a running train. On this aspect, the applicants relied on an unreportable judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.1184 of 2003) wherein the apex Court at para No.9 held as under: “The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in Clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fall even after assuming everything in its favour.” 12. In view of the above principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeals have to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.Nos.1489 of 2008 AND 1062 of 2009. Date:11.08.2011 AMD