THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.597 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 19.02.2009 in O.A.A.No.104 of 2005, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent/applicant, claiming compensation consequent on the death of Chebrolu Pitchaiah (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent and the respondent in the appeal is applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed the claim application stating that on 03.04.2005, the deceased started from Bapatla to go to Bitragunta along with four other agricultural labourers including their Maistry. They all purchased individual tickets to travel from Bapatla to Bitragunta and boarded train No.478 passenger at about 08:00 PM. They all boarded into two different compartments of the train and when the train was passing through Km No.312/1-3 post between Uppugunduru and Ammanabrolu railway stations, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained injuries and died instantaneously. Hence, the claim petition. 4. The railways filed the written statement denying the averments made in the application and stating that there is no cause of action for the applicant as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”); that the Keyman had reported on 05.04.2005 at 12:45 hours about lying of a male dead body aged about 50 years at Km No.312/1-3 on up line between Uppugunduru and Ammanabrolu railway stations; that basing on his message, the Government Railway Police had registered a case; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that the applicant is put to strict proof to show that she is the dependant of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.478 passenger, travelling from Bapatla to Bitragunta on 03.04.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief?” 6. To substantiate the case of the applicant, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined but no documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased 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 dead body of the deceased is not identified as that of the husband of the respondent/applicant; that the name of the deceased has not been noted in the Inquest Report and as well as in the Post-mortem Report; that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 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 passenger train 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 travelling in a train carrying passengers or that the case of railways falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. It is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the Keyman of the railways by the side of the railway track at Km No.312/1-3. The report of the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) would go to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train due to his own negligence. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the identity of the deceased is not established cannot be accepted as it was raised for the first time in the appeal. There is neither a pleading nor evidence adduced on this aspect before the Tribunal. In the absence of any pleading or evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the identity of the dead body, it cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal. The Keyman of the railways found the dead body by the side of the track. Police also registered a case and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. After inquest, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post- mortem examination. Ex.A4 is the Death Certificate issued by the competent authority. Furthermore, after completion of entire investigation, police filed Ex.A6 – Final Report stating that there was no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting in the death of the deceased. So, from the evidence available on record it is clear that the untoward incident happened and in that incident the deceased died. AW.1 categorically stated that the deceased started from Bapatla to go to Bitragunta along with four others; that he purchased a ticket to travel from Bapatla to Bitragunta; that he boarded train No.478 passenger; and that in between Uppugunduru and Ammanabrolu railway stations, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train carrying passengers resulting in his death. Practically, the evidence of AW.1 with regard to the identity of the deceased remained unchallenged. She categorically stated that the deceased is her husband and he, along with four others, was travelling in the passenger train. 13. Coming to the aspect of bona fide passenger no doubt, the respondent has not produced any valid ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers but, at the same time, AW.2, a co-passenger travelling along with the deceased, was examined on behalf of the respondent/applicant, who stated that he along with the deceased purchased tickets to go to Bitragunta and as there was rush in the compartment, he entered into the compartment from one door, whereas the deceased entered into the compartment from another door. Practically, the evidence of AW.2 remained unchallenged. His evidence would go to show that the deceased after purchasing the ticket boarded the train and while travelling in the train, he accidentally fell down from the train. The presence of AW.2 at the relevant point of time of the incident is not in dispute and the same is not denied by the railways. Once the evidence of AW.2 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence of AW.2. There are no other reasons to disbelieve the evidence of AW.2. Perhaps that is the reason why the Tribunal has placed implicit reliance on his evidence. If the evidence of AW.2 is to be accepted, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 14. Furthermore, the DRM Report would clearly go to show that the deceased due to his own negligence had fallen from the train carrying passengers and therefore, the railway administration is not liable to pay compensation. 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 he was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, are established. These two ingredients have been 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.597 OF 2009 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Chebrolu Nagarathanamma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.597 OF 2009 September 22, 2011 MD