IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1225 of 2009. Date:07.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And N.Swaroopa Rani and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 06.08.2009, in O.A.A.No.309 of 2004 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 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 N.Malla Chary (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 14.07.2004 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife, son and daughters respectively of the deceased. On 14.07.2004, while the deceased was travelling by train No.329 passenger, accidentally fell down from the said train at Tandur Railway station and died; that on receipt of the information, applicant No.1 went to the railway police station and the railway police handed over the dead body of the deceased after autopsy for performing the rituals. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Sec.123(c)(2) or Section 124-A of the Act and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased; that as per the enquiries and inquest, the deceased was not holding the journey ticket; that no article or money was found with the deceased, and in the absence of journey ticket, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and as such, prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.329 passenger travelling from Tandur to Hyderabad on 14.07.2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. The Tribunal marked the final report as Ex.C-1. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/ Railways contended that the respondents/applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as they failed to produce a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train; that due to the negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened, and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that A.W.2 has witnessed the deceased purchasing a ticket and boarding the train, and the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged, and therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he 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 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 and the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Coming to the point whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But they examined A.W.2, who is the person went to the railway station along with the deceased and saw the deceased purchasing a ticket. The evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. There is no other reason to disbelieve the testimony of A.W.2 with regard to the deceased purchasing a ticket. Since the Tribunal, after recording the reasons, placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2, there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is to be put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to accept his evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly accepted the evidence of A.W.2 and there are no justifiable grounds to reject or discard the testimony of A.W.2. There is no contra evidence adduced by Railways to show that the deceased was not a passenger travelling in passenger train with valid ticket. 12. Coming to the negligence aspect, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because it is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 07th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1225 OF 2009 Date:07.09.2011 AMD