IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.778 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And K.Ondiveeran and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 22.04.2008, in O.A.A.No.527 of 2005 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 O.Ganesh Kumar (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 27.05.2005, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the parents of the deceased; that the deceased was working as Subdedar BSF, Meru Camp, Hazaribagh, Zharkhand and with a view to return to Zharkhand to attend his duty, he boarded train 3352 Alleppy- Dhanbad Tata Express in Coach No.S-3, Berth No.71 in the night of 26.05.2005 at about 10.40 p.m. at Chennai Central Railway station holding a journey-cum-reservation ticket from Chennai to Ranchi bearing No.16082590 vide PNR No.413-7904234 and on 27.05.2005, at about 10.30 a.m., while travelling, he went to washbasin and suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at KM.No.568/0-2 near Pasivedala Railway station yard, as he was hit by the door of the train due to speed and jerks resulting in severe multiple injuries; that immediately, the injured was brought to Rajahmundry by the same train and the railway Doctor attended on the injured and declared him dead. 3. The appellant/Railways filed the written statement denying the averments of the application stating that the doors of the general coach are keft open generally, but the doors of the reserved coach would be closed when the train moves; that it is not possible for a passenger to fall from the train when the door was closed; that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train and hence, 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.3352 Alleppy-Dhanbad Tata Express travelling from Chennai Central to Ranchi on 26.05.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 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 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 appellant/ Railways contended that there is negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the legal representatives are not entitled to the 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 the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and 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 applicants 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 train carrying passengers with a 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 or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. 12. Coming to the aspect of negligence, 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 the said provision 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. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and 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 26th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.778 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 AMD