THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.418 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.03.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents towards compensation for the death of one Arumugam Jagan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on the intervening night of 1/2-1-2005 while the deceased along with his friends was travelling by Train No.3351 Express, after purchasing a joint ticket No.16592071 by paying Rs.316/-, and when the train was passing Venkatachalam Railway Station, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train due to jerks and speed and sustained serious head injury and that he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nellore and later in view of his serious condition, he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Chennai where he succumbed to the injuries on 5/6-01-2005. Hence, the respondents who are the wife and mother of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stating that as per the Guard of the train there was no incident of fall near Venkatachalam Railway Station and that the alleged incident, if any, was caused due to the negligence and criminal acts of the deceased himself, as such the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation from the Railway Administration and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.3351 Express travelling from Ongole to Chennai on 1.1.2005? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on the side of the applicants, the first applicant got herself examined as A.W.1 besides another witness as A.W.2, and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the appellant- Railway Administration no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondents/ applicants as compensation and directed the appellant (Railways) to deposit the said amount with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the order impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that because of the negligence on the part of the deceased only he fell down from the running train and therefore for the lapses committed by the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to claim compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents contended that the plea of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration and that the deceased sustained injuries in an untoward incident and that he was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death, the applicants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim, its case has to fall under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989 (for short, the Act) 11 Insofar as the negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever was adduced by the Railway Administration that their case falls under any one of the exceptions mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and that as it is also established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the applicants who are his legal representatives are entitled to compensation. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal on that aspect need no interference. 12 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 16.09.2011 GK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.418 of 2008 Date:16.09.2011