IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.580 of 2008 Between: Union of India rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT And Vadde Indanoore Kistappa and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.580 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2005 in O.A.A.No.63 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents herein claiming compensation for the death of one Vadde Indanoore Anjappa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to pay compensation within two months from the date of order, failing which the railways are directed to pay interest @6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Applicants Nos.1 and 2 as parents, applicant No.3 as brother and applicant No.4 as wife of Vadde Indanoore Anjappa, filed the claim application to award Rs.4 lakhs as compensation on the death of the deceased who said to be on train journey on 14.12.1998 from Begumpet to Nawangi R.S. by Rayalaseema express and slipped from the train at Nawangi resulting in his death. 4. The respondent-Railways stand is that neither the Guard, Driver nor Station Master, Nawangi R.S. have substantiated the incident, and that the Key man on patrol duty of track had found the dead body at KM No.52/14-15 in between up and down lines on 15.12.1998 at 8 a.m. and on that Station Master sent a message to GRP. Enquiries revealed that the deceased was hit by running train while he was crossing the track. The incident does not fall under the category of untoward incident under Sec.123 of Railways Act. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Vadde Indanoore Anjappa? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Rayalasima express traveling from Begumpet to Nawangi on 14.12.1998? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Nawangi Railway Station? 4. Relief and costs? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW 1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent-Railways RWs 1 to 3 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. 7. The Claims Tribunal, having appreciated the entire evidence available on record, allowed the claim application granting compensation as stated above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Railways. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in death, as he was standing at the door in a moving train, and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased; that when the death of the deceased in an untoward incident and when he is a bona fide passenger, the claimants are entitled to compensation; and therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions 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 burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The railways found the dead body of the deceased lying by the side of the railway track and basing on the information from the Key man of Railways, police registered the case and conducted inquest. During course of inquest, police seized the Ticket from the pocket of the deceased, which suggests that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, traveling in passenger train. Ex.A5 ticket produced by the applicants cannot be said to be invalid ticket, as it was not denied by the respondent-railways. The only ground taken by the railways is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and it is not a case of accidental fall from the train, and hence the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. No evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to show that due to negligence on the part of the deceased only the untoward incident had occurred. Therefore, the contention that there was negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted. Further more, no such defence is available to the railway administration. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided above, and so, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 16.09.2011 Gk