THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No. 1156 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.07.2009 made in O.A.A.No.296 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the respondents 1 to 3 herein were awarded an amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards compensation for the death of one Kommineni Krishnamurthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 14.09.2002 the deceased purchased a valid ticket No.1979935 intending to go to Madhira from Khammam and travelled in Golconda Express, Train No.7202. When the train reached Madhira, the deceased accidentally fell from the train due to the heavy crowd of passengers, sustained grievous injuries and died. In that connection the respondents filed the said O.A.A.No.296 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said O.A.A. inter alia contending that the body was found at 7.00 AM on 15.09.2002, whereas the fall from the train should have occurred at 6.00 PM on the evening of the previous day, that there was a broad day light and that none had reported noticing the body and hence it is apparent that the deceased either might have committed suicide or was run over by crossing the track. 4 Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased ii. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, A.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on the side of the respondents / applicants and on behalf of the appellant/Railways R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 6 The Tribunal, having considered the entire oral and documentary evidence available, held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and met with his death on account of fall from the train which was an untoward incident and that the respondents who are his dependents are entitled to Rs.4 Lakhs towards compensation from the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award impugned in this appeal is correct and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there is no eyewitness to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train and that the Guard of the train has reported that no untoward incident had taken place on 14.09.2002 and that in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation to the respondents as he was not a bonafide passenger travelling in the passenger train and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that after considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the respondents/ claimants and hence the order of the Tribunal needs no interference by this court. 10 Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of no fault liability. The initial burden is on the claimants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. To establish the same, the original ticket Ex.A.5 is marked to show that the deceased was travelling in the passenger train i.e. Golconda Express as a bonafide passenger. A.W.2 is an eyewitness to the accident who also categorically stated that the deceased had fallen from the running train. The body of the deceased was lying by the side of the track at the end of the platform. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.2 coupled with the recitals of Ex.A.5, which is the original ticket, it is established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. The correctness and the genuineness of Ex.A.5 is not seriously disputed even by the Railway administration. 11 The death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged untoward incident. A.W.3 (Doctor) who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased has categorically stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased can be possible by falling from a running train. The opinion of the doctor has been clearly mentioned in Ex.A.3, which is the postmortem examination certificate. Similarly in Ex.A.2, which is the inquest report, the inquestdars opined that the deceased had fallen from the running train. Therefore, the evidence available on record would clearly go to show that the death of the deceased was due to fall from the running train in an untoward incident. Ex.A.4 which is the final report filed by the Government Railway police would also go to show that the deceased has fallen from the running train. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who accidentally fell down from the running train and died. So the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation to the respondents who are the dependents of the deceased. 12 If the case of the railways has fallen under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, then the burden is on the Railways to establish the same. But the Railway Administration has not adduced any evidence to show that their case falls under any one of the exceptions of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 13 Therefore, the trial court rightly awarded compensation and that order needs no interference by this court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------ K.C.BHANU, J. 04.08.2011 Kvsn