THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.9 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.11.2009 made in O.A.A.No.330 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity} filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 {“the Act” for brevity}, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the death of the deceased Talapakala Srinivasulu, who died in train accident on 31.08.2005. 2. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under. The Application is filed by the parents of Talapakala Srinivasulu, who is stated to have died in an untoward incident on 31.08.2005. The applicants claimed that while their son was travelling in train No.425 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam Passenger, from Nuziveed to Samalkot, having ticket in his pocket, because the train was crowded and due to speed of the train, he was struct by the train door, lost control and fell at Km.503/6. Four tickets were found on him it was stated. The applicants claimed Rs.4,00,000/- in compensation. 3. The Railways resisted the claim in the Written statement while admitting the incident, on the grounds that as per the respondent, the Inquest report clearly showed that the deceased exposed himself to danger by leaning out from the compartment and getting hit by the Home signal at Km.503/5. The applicants were also put to proof regarding their averments in the application. 4. The issues framed on 05.03.2007 were: (1) Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? And (4) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 6. Considering the evidence and material on record, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation for the own negligence of the deceased. 9. For the purpose of compensation, as per proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied; (1) A person is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; and (2) He died in an untoward incident. 10. With regard to the first requirement, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 11. Coming to the second aspect, the only contention raised by the appellant is that due to the negligence of the deceased only the incident had taken place and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant need not prove negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicants show that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under any one of the defences available to the Railway Administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of Railway Administration falls under any one of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondents. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs. ____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 19th August 2011 RRB