THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.844 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS {SR} NO.17297 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.04.2008 in O.A.A.No.149 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. The respondent/applicant filed cross objections to grant interest from the date of application till the date of award. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under. The applicant {father of Suresh Nimbalkar (hereinafter referred to as deceased)} has filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. The applicant’s version is that his son-Suresh Nimbalkar was working as Mason in Hyderabad since 4 years and while he was going to Raigiri Village of Bidar District, Karnataka, to his sister Sunita’s home, by 347 Hyderabad – Purna passenger train from Hyderabad to Bidar on 10.04.2002, as a bona fide passenger, he was accidentally fallen down between Hyderabad & Khairatabad Railway stations at K.M.No.185/63-63 resulting his death on the spot. 4. The respondent-Railways in their reply denied the averments made in the application and stated that enquiries with the SS reveal that only dead body was lying. No fall was noticed nor any passenger brought to his notice. Guard of 347 also confirms that he did not notice any person falling nor any passenger informed of unusual occurrence of accidental fall and hence fall from train is denied and the incident will not attract the provisions of Section 123 (c) II and 124-A of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues were framed: (1) Whether the applicant is sole dependent of the deceased? (2) Whether on 10.04.2002 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? (3) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act? (4) Relief and costs. 6. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal got marked Ex.C1. On considering the evidence and material on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of that order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order impugned is liable to set aside. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that the evidence of R.W.1 would go to show that no untoward incident has taken place in respect of the train in which the deceased was allegedly travelling and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the First Information Report coupled with Inquest Report and the Post Mortem Report would clearly go to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and the applicant produced Ex.A4-original ticket showing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. For the purpose of compensation, as per proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied; (1) A person is a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket; and (2) He died in an untoward incident. With regard to the first requirement, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The applicant produced Ex.A4-original ticket and the same is not shown to be invalid or incorrect. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Railways to show that Ex.A4 is not a valid ticket. 11. Coming to the second aspect, the only contention raised by the appellant is that due to the negligence of the deceased only the incident had taken place and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to compensation. 12. Though the Railway Administration seriously disputed about the deceased falling from the passenger train, as the guard of the train did not notice any person falling form the train, but at the same time, the deceased purchased a ticket under Ex.A4 to travel in Hyderabad – Purna passenger train from Hyderabad to Bidar on 10.04.2002. While he was travelling in the train, he accidentally fell down in between Hyderabad and Khairatabad Railway Stations. The dead body of the deceased was lying by the side of track. Police registered a case and held inquest on the dead body. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injury sustained by falling from a train. Further, after completion of investigation, the police filed a final report under Ex.C1 stating that there was no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting in the death of the deceased. Therefore, R.W.1 might not have noticed the person falling from the train and therefore, it is a case where the deceased died in an untoward incident. 13. 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 the deceased 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 deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under any one of the exceptions enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of Railway Administration falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under 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. 14. With regard to the Cross Objections, the claim petition is filed in the year 2002 and the award was passed on 22.04.2208. The applicant is seeking interest from the date of petition till the date of award at the rate of 6% per annum. It is not their case that they were reporting ready on each and every adjournment and there were no lapses on his part with regard to the pendency of the original application in the Tribunal. Unless it is shown that Railway Administration had taken number of adjournments in spite of reporting ready in the original application, interest cannot be granted to the applicant for the lapses on his behalf, as the applicant cannot derive any advantage of his lapses. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections are dismissed. No costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 29th August 2011 RRB