IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 957 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D G.Srinivasa Rao …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 957 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2009 in O.A.A.No.183 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- directing the Railways to deposit the amount within two months from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondent in the appeal is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed the claim application stating that on 01.03.2006 he along with his wife, mother, and children in order go to Annavaram to have Darshan of Lord Sri Satyanarayana Swamy, went to Vijayawada Railway Station at about 08:00 PM and purchased II Class journey ticket from Vijayawada to Annavaram for their travel to Annavaram by train No.471 Vijayawada-Rayagada passenger and reached platform No.5 and waited for train. After some time, train No.471 came on platform No.5 and the applicant while boarding into the train to secure seats for his wife and mother, accidentally slipped fell down from the train due to sudden jerk and jolts of the train and fell down in between platform and train and his right leg was crushed and he also sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately after the incident, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada by passengers along with the family members and where he was treated as inpatient upto 03.04.2006 and later he was shifted to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri and later shifted to GGH, Guntur where his right leg was amputated upto knee and was still undergoing treatment. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that on 01.03.2006 at about 20:55 hours, train No.476 stopped due to ACP in coach No.SC 93460/AB and while entering into platform No.5 it is learnt that one passenger by name Gotteti Srinivasa Rao, aged 45 years R/o Kothapet, Vijayawada having ticket No.170977 Express Vijayawada to Annavaram, fell down while entering into the running train and co-passengers called ambulance and took him to the hospital for treatment; that the applicant had not fallen down from trainNo.471 and that there is no cause of action for the applicant as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c ) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.471 Vijayawada-Rayagada Passenger travelling from Vijayawada to Annavaram on 01.03.2006? 2. Whether the Applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim application holding that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and sustained injuries in an untoward incident. Challenging the same, the Railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/Railways contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travellilng in train No.476 passenger in view of the fact that the said train was coming from Gudivada to Vijayawada and so, the railway administration is not liable to pay compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died or sustained injuries and secondly that he was a bona fide passenger of the train carrying passengers. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, the person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is 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 applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident while boarding a moving train. The defence of negligence on the part of the applicant is not available to the railway administration in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. Whether there is fault or not, the applicant is entitled to compensation provided the two requirements under Section 124-A of the Act namely, viz., (1) he sustained injuries in an untoward incident and, (2) the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, are established. Admittedly, the applicant was having Ex.A.3 ticket to show that he can travel in a train carrying passengers from Vijayawada to Annavaram in train No.471. He came on platform and waited for the train. In the mean while, another train No.476 passenger, Gudivada to Vijayawada, came on the platform. The applicant seemed to be under the mistaken impression that he had to travel in train No.476, tried to board the train, lost the control, fell down and sustained injuries. No doubt, he was a bona fide passenger in respect of train No.471, but, at the same time, he was having a valid ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers from Vijayawada to Annavaram. Under the wrong impression he might have tried to board a wrong train. So, it is not a case of intentionally boarding a wrong train so as to take advantage of the situation. Therefore, the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL