THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.652 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.258 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of G. Venkata Rama Rao (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’), in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 12.09.2000, while the deceased was travelling by train No.481 passenger from Guntur to Narasapur, he stood beside the door of the compartment and when the train was reaching Palakol Railway Station, he accidentally slipped and fell under the wheels of the train and his body was cut into pieces. Hence, the claim. 3. The Respondent – Railways denied the averments of the applicants and stated that there is no accidental fall within the meaning of untoward incident; that the First Information Report reveals the finding of a male dead body on the track near PKD Cabin; that as per the Guard’s report, nothing unusual happened on this train; that in the absence of any ticket, the deceased cannot be considered as a bona fide passenger. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependants of the deceased Gandham Venkataramarao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train no.481 passenger travelling from Bhimavaram to Narsapur on 12.09.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Palakol railway station? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Exs.C1 to C3 were got marked. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in getting down from the train, which is going to be stopped on platform No.1 of Palakol Railway Station, and accordingly, dismissed the claim of the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that while the deceased was about to get down from the train at platform No.1 of Palakol Railway Station, the untoward incident has taken place; that the evidence would clearly disclose that falling of the deceased from the train was an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”), and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent – railways contended that since the deceased himself tried to get down from the moving train, there must be negligence on his part; that therefore, the appellants/applicants are not entitled to compensation; that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants; that there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied viz., (1) there is an untoward incident in which the person received injuries or died and (2) the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled for compensation. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The falling of the deceased from the train is not in dispute. Police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased is also not in dispute. The only question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are entitled to compensation, as there was some negligence on the part of the deceased while getting down from the moving train. Section 124A of the Act is based upon ‘No Fault Liability’. The question of negligence is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue whether the applicants are entitled for any compensation. If the case falls under any of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A of the Act, then only the railway – administration is not entitled to pay any compensation. Since the deceased is about to get down from the moving train, which is going to be stopped on platform No.1 of Palakol Railway Station, the incident is alleged to have taken place. So, even if there is some negligence on the part of the deceased while getting down from the train, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the applicants. So, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.258 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, and granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 28, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.652 OF 2006 Between: Gandham Nagaveni and others .....APPELLANTS AND Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.652 OF 2006 March 28, 2011