IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 95 OF 2008 Between : P.Shyamalamma and others. …APPELLANTS A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 95 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’), is directed against the order, dated 25.10.2007, in O.A.A.No.131 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Ramachandraiah, was dismissed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the applicants, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are that, on 31.03.2001 the deceased, who was working as Khalasi in Railways, went to Divitipalli on duty and after completion of his work, with a view to go to his headquarters office at Mahabubnagar, went to Divitipalli Railway Station and boarded train No.571 Secunderabad-Mahabubnagar passenger train in general compartment, holding duty card pass bearing No.010865. While he was going inside the compartment, at about 1:20 PM, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Divitipalli railway station due to jerk of the train, sustained severe injuries and while he was being shifted to Government Hospital by the Railway police, he died on the way. 4. The Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from train No.571; that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that as per the Guard report, the deceased came in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to board the running train; that in that process he slipped and fell down from the running train and sustained injuries; that the injuries sustained by the deceased are self inflicted and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceasd Ramachandraiah? 2. Whether the deceased was performing duty and amounts to bona fide passenger of train No.571 passenger traveling from Divitipalli to Mahabubnagar on 31.3.2001? 3. Whether the deceased sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Divitipali and succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, applicant No.1 himself examined as, AW-1 and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. With regard to Issue Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train and the applicants are depending on him. In so far as Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that while the deceased was about to board the running train, he accidentally fell down, sustained severe injuries and died while shifting to the hospital and therefore, it amounts to self-inflicted injuries and rejected the claim of the applicants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants contended that when the deceased tried to enter into the compartment, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train; that it is an untoward incident and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-railways opposed the same on the ground that it is a case of negligence on the part of the deceased, which attracts the case of self-inflicted injuries; that therefore, the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of ‘no fault liability’. It is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. He accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train, which is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. The defence available to the Railway Administration is enumerated under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act. While the train was moving slowly, the deceased tried to board the train he accidentally fell down from the train, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it cannot be said that it is a case of self-inflicted injuries. The deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained severe injuries. Therefore, it is an untoward incident and the appellants are entitled for compensation as prayed for. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others[1], wherein it was held thus: “We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court dated 24.05.2007 affirming the order of the trial Court and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment of the same.” So, in view of the above decision, the appellants are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of Award 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed granting simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of Award and @9% per annum thereafter till realization. However, the appellants are not entitled to withdraw the interest granted by this Court for a period of two months from today, in view of the fact that the respondent-railways said to have filed a review application in Tahazhathe’s case (1 supra) before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 09, 2010 YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 2444