IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.175 OF 2010 Date:20.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, rep. By the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao and 2 others. .. Respondents/Applicants. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.175 OF 2010 JUDGMENT:- 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 30.11.2009 in O.A.A.No.112 of 2006 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 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation for the death of the son of the applicants 1 and 2 and sister of the deceased, in an untoward incident of fall from a train on 16.1.2006, was allowed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The deceased while working in Puttaparthi, came with his employer at 5.00 p.m to Sai Nilayam Railway Station, purchased a ticket bearing No.06807170 to go to Markapur Road and while travelling in the train No.8564 Prashanti Express in the night of the 16.1.2006, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train near Ramarajupalli station yard, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and pleaded that the deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence and hence the railways are not liable to pay compensation as the case falls under the exception to proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? And 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3, were marked. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/railways is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and as a result of which he fell down from the train and consequently died on the spot and hence the appeal may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the passenger train and he died in an untoward incident, and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, is not available to railways, and hence he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the appellants 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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the appellant falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124-A of the Act. 10. With regard to the untoward incident, it is clear that the deceased has fallen from the running train on the intervening night of 16.1.2006 while the train was crossing the Ramarajupalli station yard. Negligence on the part of the deceased by itself is not a ground to deny the compensation. 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 railway administration does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly go to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train. With regard to the ticket, the applicants produced Ex.A-4 ticket, which would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the passenger train. If the railway administration is doubting the correctness or otherwise of the ticket, they should have adduced some evidence to show that Ex.A-4 is not a valid or genuine ticket. No such rebuttal evidence is adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, from Ex.A-4, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the Prasanthi Express train. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th August, 2011 Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.175 OF 2010 Date:20.08.2011 Gk.