IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.713 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Sapavath Kashya and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 04.04.2008, in O.A.A.No.235 of 2001 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 124/124-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 Sapavath Kasna (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 10.06.2001, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and children of the deceased; that on 10.06.2001, the deceased went to Karepalli Railway Station with a view to go to Gandhipuram and boarded train No.354 Kazipet-Bhadrachalam Road Passenger with a journey ticket bearing No.45437 worth Rs.3/- from Karepalli to Gandhipuram and when the train reached Gandhipuram Railway Station, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, as it started with a sudden jerk, rolled down in between train and platform, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed the written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and as per their enquiries, on 10.06.2001, some people travelling by 354 passenger went to the Gateman of Gandhipuram Station and informed him that a person had fallen from the train. The whole story has been fabricated by the applicants to get unlawful compensation, as it is strange that passengers travelling by the said train chose to inform a Gateman about the fall of a person instead of Station authorities or Guard of the train, particularly, when it is alleged that the mishap occurred at a time when the deceased was getting down from the train at Gandhipuram Railway Station, the distance between Karepalli and Gandhipuram being only 5 kms. There is no eye witness to the said incident and the Guard of the train did not come across any such incident. It is not a case of accidental fall from train in an untoward incident and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants, and prayed for dismissal of the 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.354 Dornakal-Manuguru Passenger travelling from Karepalli to Gandhipuram on 10.06.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from train? 4. Whether applicants are entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 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 passenger train with a valid ticket. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 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 as 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.713 of 2008 Date:26.09.2011 AMD