Miscellaneous Appeal No. 652 of 2008 · High Court

1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.03.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.205 of 2002 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 1 to 4 towards compensation for the death of one G.Vinay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train. 2 The respondents/claimants filed the claim application stating that on

23.04.2002 the deceased along with his elder brother Venkaiah and maternal grand father came to Nadikudi Railway Station to board Repalle to Secunderabad passenger train No. 352 Up and purchased two half tickets bearing Nos.00233 & 00234 and one full ticket bearing No.04255 from Nadikudi to Ghatkesar and reached Chityala Railway Station at about 15.00 hours and the deceased alighted from the train for drinking water and after taking water while he was getting into the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down in between the train and platform and had gone under the train, was run over, cut into pieces and died on the spot. Hence the applicants filed the present application to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the appellant under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that as per the report of the Guard of the said train a boy aged about 12 years while boarding the running train, accidentally slipped and run over by the train and as such the accident was not an untoward incident but a self inflicted injury and hence 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 the dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? iii. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on the side of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On the side of the appellant/ Railways, 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 to deposit the said amount together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid?

8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train and for the negligence on the part of the deceased the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel respondents/applicants contended that there is no evidence adduced by the Railway Administration to show that there is negligence on the part of the deceased in boarding the running train and that defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the Railway Administration hence applicants are entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened in which a person died; 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 then it has to prove there was no untoward incident happened or that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, or that its case falls under any one of the clauses under Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11 There is no dispute that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. When the above said two requirements are proved, it is needless to observe that the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased are entitled to the compensation. 12 Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is in the nature of no fault liability. When a person falls accidentally from running train, it can be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act.