THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.115 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 17.11.2008 in O.A.A No.125 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Srinivas Rao @ S.K.Bhupal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed. 2. The claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 05.05.2002, while the deceased was travelling in train no.166 Hyderabad- Warangal Push Pull train, with a valid ticket from Hyderabad to Warangal, at 7.50 PM, he slipped and fell down accidentally between plat form and train when the train halted at Moula Ali Railway station and started from that station, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stating that enquiries with Pointsman reveal that when he was standing along with Dy.S.S. at Moula Ali railway station, the train came, stopped and when it started, one person came out of the moving train and tried to get down though the passengers shouting at him not to get down, and as the train started moving speedily, the person got down from the running train and fell down, and so, the incident does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train and that due to his own negligence, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 would clearly go to show that he went to railway station, and that, at that time, the deceased purchased the ticket, and that the deceased died in an untoward incident, and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, is not available to the railways, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 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 claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. Insofar as aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, it is contended by the railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. But, the evidence of P.W.2 would clearly go to show that he went to railway station and at that point of time, the deceased purchased a ticket so as to travel in passenger train. The evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged as there was no cross-examination. When once a fact has been stated by a witness and the same has not been denied or disputed, it can be inferred that the said fact is admitted. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 10. Coming to second aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicant shows that she accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the injured, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J 24-08-2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.115 OF 2009 24.8.2011 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.115 OF 2009 24.08.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And B.Kishan Rao @ K.G.Bhupal & others …Respondents