THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.331 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2005 passed in O.A.A.No.295 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one S.Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from a train. 2 The respondents/appellants filed the claim application stating as follows: That on 05.06.1999 the deceased traveled from Jammikunta to Khazipet with a valid ticket in train No.7234 for purchasing intermediate books. Since the deceased did not turn up, the applicants went to Khazipet in search of him and a compliant was lodged with local police at Jammikunta, who informed them that a message was received from Government Railway Police, Khazipet about noticing of dead body of a young male person aged about 20 years in between Jammikunta and Uppal railway stations and the dead body was kept in the mortuary at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. On that, the applicants went and identified the dead body of the deceased. The deceased had fallen from the train carrying passengers and died and so they filed the present application to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the appellant under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement and stated that the incident is not an untoward incident since there are no eye witnesses for the fall of the deceased. The Key man on duty had noticed a dead body at 17.00 hours on 05.06.1999 between Jammikunta and Uppal Railway Stations. That the train in question had passed through Jammikunta at 6.30 AM and if there was fall of any person from the said train, it could not have been escaped attention or notice up to 17.00 hours which is a double line section being busy with to and fro trains and that the applicants cannot be permitted to take advantage of the presence of the dead body at that spot by attributing it as an untoward incident and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased S. Srinivas? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.7234 travelling from Jammikunta to Khazipet on 5.6.1999? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Jammikunta and Uppal Railway Stations? iv. To what relief? 5 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within 60 days, else, interest at 6% p.a. will accrue from the due date till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 6 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 7 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in standing at the door of the compartment and for the negligence on the part of the deceased, resulting in his death the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that there is no evidence adduced by the Railway Administration to show that there is negligence on the part of the deceased in standing at the door of the compartment and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the Railway Administration hence applicants are entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 9 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened in which a person died; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim then it has to prove there was no untoward incident happened or that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, or that its case falls under any one of the clauses under Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10 There is no dispute that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found by the Key man of the Railways by the side of the railway track. On the information furnished by the Key man of the Railways, Police registered a crime and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, the inquest mediators opined that the death was due to the multiple injuries, which the deceased sustained in the accident. The Doctor, who conducted Postmortem examination, also gave opinion to the effect that the deceased died due to the multiple injuries sustained in the accident. When the above said two requirements are proved, it is needless to observe that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation. 11 Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of no fault liability. When a person falls accidentally from running train, it can be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under exceptions as provided in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever was adduced by the Railways so as to contend that the case falls under any one of the exceptions of section 124-A of the Act. 12 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 28.09.2011 Kvsn