THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.570 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.19 of 2004 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.Ravindranath @ Ravindra Babu @ Bobby (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward accidental fall from the train. 2 The respondents / applicants filed the claim application stating as follows: On 23.06.2003 the deceased along with his friend Shaik Ismail went to Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased a combined 2nd class general computer journey ticket and boarded the train No.5012 Gorakhpur – Trivendrum Express in 2nd class general compartment. While travelling, the deceased went to the toilet and from there to the wash basin. Suddenly he slipped and fell down from the train at KM No. 375/9 near Nidubrolu Railway Station as he was hit by the door of the compartment due to speed and jerks of the train as a result he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence the applicants 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 stating that the case does not fall under the ambit of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Act and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger or that the applicants are not his legal heirs and that no fall from train would occur unless the deceased was standing negligently near the door and this amounts to self inflicted injury and criminal act of the deceased for which Railways are not liable to pay any compensation and hence 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? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on the side of the applicants, father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On the side of the appellant/ Railways, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.R.1 & R.2 were marked. 6 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 two months from the date of the order failing which the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 8 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 that for the negligence on the part of the deceased the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 Notices sent to the respondents 1 and 2 returned unserved. 10 For claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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. 11 After receiving information about the incident, police registered a crime and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. During inquest the investigating officer found a valid ticket on the wearing apparel of the deceased. Hence 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. 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. 12 Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 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 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 in the proviso to section 124-A of the Act. 13 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