THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.914 of 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.4090 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Sri T.S.Venkataramana, the learned Standing counsel representing the appellant-South Central Railway, Secunderabd, in C.M.A.No.914 o 2009 and respondent in the Cross Objections and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, the learned counsel representing the respondents in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross objectors/respondents in the cross objections. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railways Act by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, being aggrieved of an order dated 02.06.2009 made in O.A.A.No.299 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience). 3. The Tribunal, in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W-1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.R.1, and after referring to certain decisions and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died as a result of the accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The applicants aggrieved by non-granting of interest for a particular period filed the Cross-Objections. 4. Sri T.S. Venkataramana, the learned Standing counsel representing the Railways would maintain that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased-Kosuri Sivaiah fell down from the running train at KM.No.6/9-10 Namburu and Reddypalem Railway Stations due to his own negligence and hence, the applicants/cross objectors are not entitled to any compensation. He also would point out that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the death of the deceased does not fall within the ambit of Section 123-C or Section 124-A of the Railways Act as it is not a case of accidental fall from the train and that the alleged incident, if any, was caused by the negligence of the deceased himself and it was the self-inflicted injury by the deceased. The cutting of the dead body of the deceased into two pieces would establish that his death was due to suicide. The learned counsel made certain submissions relating to the burden of proof and pointed out the specific grounds in the Memorandum of grounds of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the light of the guidelines laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs., M. Siva Parvathi and others[1] and also in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to be allowed. 5. Per contra, Sri Subbarao Korrapati, the learned counsel representing the applicants-cross objectors would maintain that the Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence available on record came the correct conclusion and hence, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel would point out that the Tribunal totally erred in not granting any interest to the applicants, as claimed by them and would submit that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest on the compensation from the date of filing of the application and hence, the Cross- Objections has to be allowed. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections :- (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad is to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether the relief prayed for in the Cross-Objections has to be negatived or granted in the facts and circumstances of the case? (3) If so, to what relief, the parties would be entitled to? 7. POINT Nos:1 AND 2:- For the purpose of convenience, these two points can be discussed together. 8. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as the applicants and respondent as shown in O.A.A.No.299 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secundeabad Bench, Secunderabad. 9. It is needless to say that the respondent in the aforesaid O.A.A. is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. The claim application was filed by the applicants before the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal against the respondent-Railway administration seeking compensation for the death of one Kosuri Sivaiah (hereinafter in short referred to as “the deceased” for the purpose of convenience), on the ground that they are the dependents of the deceased, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. It is pleaded that on 31.10.2002, while the deceased along with his daughter, the 2nd applicant herein, was travelling by a passenger train from Guntur to Vijayawada, holding ticket bearing No.09338656, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Pedakakani Railway Station and died on the spot. 11. The respondent-railway administration had denied the claim taking specific stand that the applicants are put to strict proof of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the incident was an untoward incident; and that the applicants are the dependents of the deceased. 12. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal:- (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling from Guntur to Vijayawada by a passenger train on 31.10.2002? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident or accidental fall from the said train? (4) Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? (5) To what relief? 13. On behalf of the applicants, the first applicant got herself examined as A.W.1 and one K.N.Rao was examined as A.W.2 and Ex.A.1-the inquest report, Ex.A.2-the postmortem examination report, Ex.A.3-the death certificate, Ex.A.4-the Family Member certificate, Ex.A.5-the copy of ticket and Ex.A.6-the First Information Report had been marked. As against this evidence, one P. Ramanjaneyulu was examined as R.W.1 and copy of the Control Message Book was marked as Ex.R.1. 14. The Tribunal referring to certain decisions, the provisions of the Railway Tribunals Act and also the Railways Act as well, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. It observed at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 as hereunder:- “Application is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to the applicants, which shall be apportioned equally to them. It is further ordered that applicant No.1 shall receive Rs.1,00,000/- immediately and her balance amount shall be held in fixed deposits for a period of 3 years in State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda, Secunderabad with liberty to draw periodical interest. The applicant No.2 being minor, her entire share amount shall be held in fixed deposit in the said bank for a period till she attains the age of majority with liberty to draw periodical interest by her guardian, applicant No.1, towards her maintenance. The applicant No.1 is directed to open a SB A/C in any nationalized bank near the place of her residence and furnish a copy of the pass book to the said bank and to this Tribunal, to remit periodical interest to her SB A/c .The fixed deposits shall not be subjected to any encumbrance. The Respondent railway is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.” 15. The evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A.1 to A.6 and the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 had been appreciated in elaboration and the findings had been recorded by the Tribunal. Ex.A.4 is the Family Member Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tadepalli, certifying that the applicants 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. It was stated that on 31.10.2002, the deceased along with her daughter, i.e., the 2nd applicant herein, was travelling from Guntur to Vijayawada, holding ticket bearing No.09338656 issued for one adult and one child. The applicants have also filed a copy of the said journey ticket along with the application. The mention of said ticket having recovered from the daughter of the deceased also finds place in Column No.XV of the Inquest Report-Ex.A.1. The respondent railways have not disputed the validity or genuineness of the said ticket. 16. Ex.R.1 Control Message Book also had been referred to and the findings had been recorded at paragraph Nos. 9 and 10. 17. A.W.2 stated in his affidavit that on 31.10.2002, himself, the deceased and his daughter came to Guntur Railway Station and that he saw the deceased boarding the passenger train at 8.00 P.M. on the said date. A.W.2 was cross-examined by the respondent, but they could not elicit anything contrary to disprove his evidence. Once it emerges that the deceased, a bona fide passenger, died while travelling in the train, the burden shifts on the respondent railways to prove that the death of the deceased was on account of any of the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act to absolve it from the liability of payment of compensation. 18. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to compensation and the relevant portion of the order at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 had already been referred to above. 19. The Cross objections had been filed aggrieved by non-granting of the interest on the compensation by the Tribunal. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Cross-Objections are to be allowed. 21. It is needless to say that the C.M.A. is devoid of merits and hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal relating to other aspects has to be confirmed and the appeal has to be dismissed. 22. POINT No:3- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross-Objections are allowed granting interest on the compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of Award and thereafter @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of realization. The parties do bear their own costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: 08.07.2010 bud THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.NO.914of 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.4090 of 2010 DATED: 08.07.2010 [1]2004 (1) ALT Page 100