IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.595 of 2008 Between: Union of India rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT And Payyani @ Praveen Kumar .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.595 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 28.03.2008 in O.A.A.No.223 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent herein claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- and directing the Railways to pay compensation with interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order till the date of realization. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The application was filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- for the injury sustained by him in an untoward incident that happened at Secunderabad Railway Station (R.S) on 21.06.2004. The applicant has stated that on 21.06.2004 while he was boarding Narayanadri Express at Secunderabad R.S. along with his brother-in-law Sri Kuppuswamy to go to Srikalahasti to meet his sister, after having purchased ticket Nos.14729015 and 14729016, he accidentally fell down from the train between platform and train, as the train started with jerk without giving a signal or whistle resulting in the train moving over his leg. He was taken to Gandhi Hospital by Government Railway Police, Secunderabad, where he was admitted as inpatient from 21.06.2004 to 24.06.2004 and during treatment, his right leg was amputated below knee. He also stated that he lost his baggage consisting of 2 pairs of clothes, writ watch and cash of about Rs.2,000/-, totaling to Rs.5,000/- and that he suffered total disability. 4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement dated 19.07.2005 stating that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger and that the alleged injury caused to him is not due to accidental fall from train in an untoward incident and therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial; 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train No.7424 Narayanadri express, traveling from Secunderabad to Srikalahasti on 21.06.2004? 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 of Rs.2,25,000? 4. To what relief? 6. Basing on the evidence and material available on record, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. partly and awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the applicant and directed the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of the order till payment. Aggrieved thereby, the Railways preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct and valid? 8. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, the applicant himself was examined as AW 1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent-Railways no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. The learned standing counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in attempting to board running train resulting in amputation of right leg of the applicant, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- applicant contended that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant; that when the untoward incident and the bona fide passenger are established, the claimant is entitled to compensation; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. 11. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Sec.124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, a person died or sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. 12. As per the evidence of AW 1, he along with his brother-in-law purchased tickets to go to Srikalahasti from Secunderabad on 21.06.2004, and while he was boarding Narayanadri Express at Secunderabad Railway Station on platform No.2, he accidentally fell down between platform and train, as the train started with a jerk without giving a signal or whistle and due to which, he sustained crush injury to his right foot. Ex.A4 shows that he is a bona fide passenger. The ticket was not disputed by the respondent-railways. The railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the applicant stating that the applicant sustained injuries while he was attempted to board moving train and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation for his lapses. But no evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to that effect. Therefore, the contention that there was negligence on the part of the applicant cannot be accepted. Further more, no such defence is available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of “no fault liability”. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Sec.124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided in the proviso, and so, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Even there is some negligence on the part of the applicant, it cannot be a ground to deny the compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 16.09.2011 Gk