IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.549 OF 2006 Date:15.09.2011 Between:- Smt K.Susheela Devi ...Appellant And The Union of India and another. ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed by the first applicant against the order, dated 09.03.2006, in O.A.A.No.54 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicant Nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of her husband K.Venkat Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is applicant No.1; respondent No.1 in the C.M.A. is the respondent and respondent No.2 is applicant No.2 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 O.A.A. stating that on 25.10.2000 the deceased, who is a resident of Tandur, working as MPDO, boarded train No.330 Hyderabad-Pune passenger and while he was travelling in the passenger train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and died at Khairtabad Railway Station and the same was informed to the applicants by the Railway Police, Hyderabad. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/ Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the Deputy SS/SC reported to GRP about one unknown trespasser found lying dead by the side of the up line track; that the Guard of train No.330 Hyderabad-Pune passenger did not report any untoward incident to ACP; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train 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 Kauva Venkat Reddy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.330 Hyderabad-Pune passenger, travelling from Khairtabad to Tandur on 25.10.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Khairtabad Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that fall of the deceased and his consequent death is not covered by Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) but comes under self inflicted injury. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant No.1. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, correct and legal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant No.1 contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased tried to board the running train, which is not tenable and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train; for the negligence on the part of the deceased, applicants are not entitled to any compensation; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the claim application and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. 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 the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or 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. 12. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train carrying passengers from Khairtabad to Tandur. The applicants filed two tickets, bearing Nos.09724 & 09725, which were marked as Exs.A.2 and A.3. Exs.A2 and A.3 are not shown to be incorrect and invalid tickets. As two requirements are proved, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 13. On the ground that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, applicants are entitled to compensation subject to production of dependency certificate that may be issued by the competent authority. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 09.03.2006 in O.A.A.No.54 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Out of the same, the appellant /applicant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and respondent No.2/applicant No.2 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- . The applicants are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this award till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 15 2011 YVL