IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.932 OF 2007 Date:11.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And G.Hanumanthu and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 21.08.2007, in O.A.A.No.13 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim application 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 G.Praveen Kumar (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 20.11.2001, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the parents and sister of the deceased; that the deceased along with his friends, while going from Timmancherla to Ananthapur by train No.537 passenger to attend the marriage of his friend on 21.11.2001, accidentally fell down from the said train at Garladinna Railway Station, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement and stated that the First Information Report, which was given by Deputy Station Superintendent/GDE, was based on the information furnished by the alleged co-passenger and the same does not reveal about the fall of the deceased from the train, but merely reveals that one body was found on B.G.Track. Even as per the report of the Guard of train No.537, no incident of fall from train had occurred at Garladinne on 20.11.2001. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the said train and prayed to dismiss the claim. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased G.Praveen Kumar? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.537 passenger travelling from Timmancherla to Ananthapur on 20.11.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Garladinna Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were got marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that he 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 was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death, as he was standing at the door projecting his body outside the compartment, as a result of which, his body came into contact with up-starter of Broad Gauge Loop Line, which was erected for the purpose of electrification; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants 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 train carrying passengers and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the Railway administration; 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 was 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. It is not in dispute that the deceased was having original ticket- Ex.A-2, which shows that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the railway track. The police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The applicants examined A.W.2, who categorically stated that the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained injuries; that some passengers pulled the chain and the train was halted, and that he along with some other passengers went to the place where the deceased fell down. From the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased had fallen down from the running train accidentally and died. A specific plea has been taken by the Railways that the deceased died due to his negligence, as he was standing at the door projecting his body outside the compartment, and hence, the applicants are not entitled to compensation. Except taking a plea, no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to establish the said fact. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect cannot be accepted. Further more, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the Railways in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.932 OF 2007 Date:11.10.2011 AMD