THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.68 and 373 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of an order, dated 15.01.2010, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.A.No.46 of 2003. Through the said order, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/-, as compensation, on account of the death of late Sri Chidarla Paparao. C.M.A.No.68 of 2010 is filed by the claimants feeling aggrieved by the denial of interest by the Tribunal. C.M.A.No.373 of 2010 is filed by the Railway Administration, challenging the award. The parties are referred to, as arrayed in the O.A.A. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claimants filed the O.A.A., stating that Paparao boarded No.442 Passenger Train at Tenali, after purchasing a ticket up to Appikatla, on 22.10.2002, and that he fell from train, in an untoward incident and his body was cut into pieces. The dead body was noticed, only by the driver of another train, and on information furnished by him, an F.I.R was registered and the dead body was shifted for postmortem. In the O.A.A., 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 6 are their children and claimant No.7 is his mother. The claim was opposed by the Railways. According to them, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death was not on account of any untoward incident. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant deposed as witness, and she filed Exs.A.1 to A.7, ranging from F.I.R. to Final report. It was held that the death occurred, on account of the untoward incident. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded, as compensation, and it was apportioned among the claimants. Though the railway administration challenges the award on merits, this Court is not at all inclined to accept their contention. It may be true that there was no eye-witness for the accident and that the dead body was noticed, only by a driver of the subsequent train. All the same, a valid train ticket was recovered from the dead body and the accident occurred within the distance covered by the ticket. Had it been a case where the dead body was first located by relations of the deceased; there would have been a possibility for planting the ticket. Since the noticing of the dead body and shifting thereof, were by the officials of the railways itself, such possibility does not exist. The Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons in support of its conclusions that the death of the deceased was on account of an untoward incident. Therefore, C.M.A.No.373 of 2010 is dismissed. The only point urged in C.M.A.No.68 of 2010 is as regards interest. There does not exist any specific provision of law providing for award of interest. It is only in the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that interest is payable at 6%, per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of deposit. In the instant case, progress in the O.P. could not take place, on account of the absence of final report. The claimants filed it only in the year 2008, though the final report was very much available in the year 2002 itself. For all practical purposes, the actual version on behalf of the claimants came to be presented only in the year 2008. The railways cannot be burdened with the responsibility to pay the interest earlier thereto. Hence, C.M.A.No.68 of 2010 is partly allowed, directing that the claimants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 6%, per annum, from 01.01.2008, till the date of deposit of the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:17.08.2010 GJ