IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.544 of 2006. Date:09.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Devaki Sarojini and others. .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 03.04.2006, in O.A.A.No.8 of 2002 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 Sections 124-A and 125 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 Devaki Venkata Narasimha Rao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 14.11.2001 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the mother and sisters of the deceased. On 13.11.2001, while the deceased was travelling by a train from Tirupathi to Rajahmundry with a valid journey ticket bearing No.19780974, he accidentally fell down from the train at KM No.399/32-39 near Kativaram Railway gate of Tenali Railway Station on 14.11.2001 as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments in the petition and stated that since the dead body was seen by the Keyman, there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, and it might have occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself, and put the applicants to strict proof that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and therefore, the Railways are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are sole dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether on 13.11.2001 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 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 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 and therefore, 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; that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration 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 claimants 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 passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, they have to prove that the 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 died in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that he is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. When these two aspects are established beyond preponderance of probability, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to the compensation. The only defence taken by the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. 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 it 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. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is untenable and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. 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 9th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.544 of 2006 Date:09.09.2011 AMD