Appellants' previous ex gratia payments do not bar claimants from seeking statutory compensation under the Railways Act.

1. Union of India through General Manager, South Central Railway, is in appeal against the order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in O.A.A. No. 130 of 2007, dated 30.3.2011.

2. Under the aforesaid award, the Railway Claims Tribunal considered the claim of the respondents for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with interest on account of the death of the husband of claimant No. 1 late S. Janaki Ramaiah. It is alleged that he was a Railway Protection Force constable deputed to Bapatla and while on return to Vijayawada, by train No. 7480, Tirupati - Puri Express, he accidentally fell down from the train on platform No. 3 at Bapatla Station on 13.3.2007 and died.

3. The appellant Railways while denying the averments in the claim petition stated that the deceased fell down while trying to board the train from the offside and as such it is a self - inflicted injury. They also stated that the ex gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was paid on account of the death while on duty and enhanced ex gratia compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 is in process and hence, the claimants are not entitled to any further compensation.

4. The Tribunal framed as many as five points for consideration and recorded the evidence of claimant No. 1 as AW 1 and marked Exhs. A1 to A5. Crucial among the said documents is Exhs. A4 and A5, Movement order and the duty pass of the deceased and Family Member Certificate respectively. No evidence was lead on behalf of the appellant.

5. The Tribunal found on issue No. 1 that the claimants were getting family pension and also received ex gratia and as per the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bapatla, holding claimants as dependants. On issue No. 2, it was found that the deceased was on duty and on issue No. 3 it was found that as per the report of the D.R.M. also the death was an untoward incident and not a self - inflicted injury. The issue No. 5 regarding claimants' entitlement of compensation in view of the receipt of ex gratia, the Tribunal found that there is no bar for seeking claim under S.123, S.124 or 124 - A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity, 'the Act') and it was held that mere payment of ex gratia does not bar the dependant from seeking compensation under the relevant provisions under the Railways Act. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 was granted.

6. In this appeal, the main and the only question urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that having received ex gratia much more than the amount granted by the Tribunal, the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation under S.124 and S.124 - A of the Act. S.128 is also pressed into service to contend that right of person to claim compensation is available only under any one of the beneficial provisions and it is not open for a claimant to seek compensation twice over. Reliance is placed on a decision of this court in Preeti Comforts v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Eluru , 2008 ACJ 2797 (AP).

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - claimants contends that the liability of the appellant Railways for payment of compensation arises under S.124 and S.124 - A of the Act. The untoward incident established in the case presupposes that the act on the part of the appellant is wrongful for which the appellant is liable to compensate the person wronged or his dependants. Strong reliance is also placed upon sub-clause (2) of S.128 of the Act, which clarifies that the saving of certain rights under sub-clause (1) of S.128 does not apply when compensation is paid under any contract or a scheme or any sum payable under any policy of insurance. Based on the above, it is co