THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.Nos.4780 & 4827 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 CMA No.4780 of 2004 is directed against the order dated 21.09.2004 passed in O.A.A.No.279 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 to 5 towards compensation for the death of one Shaik Nasar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and aggrieved by not granting interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award, the claimants filed CMA No.4827 of 2004. 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in CMA No.4780 of 2004. 3 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 20.04.2000 the deceased along with her daughter was traveling from Nizamabad to Secunderabad and extended their ticket up to Bellamkonda at Secunderabad Railway Station and boarded train No.351 Secunderabad – Repalle passenger and that when the train reached Bellamkonda at about 3.45 PM while the deceased was getting down from the train it started suddenly resulting in her fall and death. Hence, the respondents who are the sons and daughters of the deceased filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the incident does not fall within the definition of untoward incident enumerated under section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that on enquires it revealed that a lady aged about 70 years having EFT No.904799 dated 19.04.2000 Ex.Nizamabad to Sattenapalli travelling by 351 passenger attempted to get down at Bellamkonda station, fell down and sustained injuries. It is further stated that since the EFT possessed by the deceased was dated 19.04.2000 and the incident had taken place on the next day, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and further contended that the deceased was negligent in getting down from the moving train and the injury sustained by her amounts to self inflicted injury which is one of the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act and hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Shaik Nasar Bi? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.351 passenger travelling from Nizamabad to Secunderabad and extended the journey ticket to Bellampally on 20.04.2000? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Bellamkonda Railway Station? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant, but Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of order with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till realization. As stated supra, aggrieved by the award granting Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondents towards compensation, the appellant filed CMA No.4780 of 2004; and for not granting interest to them on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of award, the respondents filed CMA No.4827 of 2004. 7 Now the points for consideration are i) Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? And ii) Whether the respondents are entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of award? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that due to the negligence of the deceased only the accident had taken place, which is not an untoward incident and hence the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore the claimants are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that there is no evidence from the side of the Railway Administration to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and hence claimants are not entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest to the respondents/applicants from the date of petition till the date of award. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 11 The initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and she died in an untoward incident. Insofar as the bonafide passenger is concerned, Ex.R.2 which is the message given by the Station Superintendent would clearly disclose that the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel from Nizamabad to Secunderabad bearing No.12642 and Secunderabad to Sattenapalli bearing ticket No.904799 and that the ticket No.12642 was extended on 20.04.2000. Therefore, from the above fact, it is clear that the deceased was travelling on the passenger train No.564 from Nizamabad to Secunderabad and further continued her journey by passenger train No.351 so as to go to Bellamkonda on 20.04.2000. The evidence of R.W.1 who is the Station Master of Bellamkonda railway station would also go to the effect that a lady passenger aged about 70 years having EFT No.904799 dated 19.04.2000 travelling by train No.351 fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 12 The Government Railway Police after receipt of report from the Station Superintendent registered a case and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by her. So the deceased died in an untoward incident is not in dispute and from the evidence of R.W.1 it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travellng in a passenger train. 13 The defence of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the clauses in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and no evidence of whatsoever is adduced by the Railways so as to contend that the case falls under any one of the exceptions in proviso to section 124-A of the Act. 14 In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal preferred by the appellant i.e. CMA No.4780 is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. 15 Insofar as the appeal preferred by the respondents/applicants is concerned, granting of interest during the pendency of the claim application is within the discretion of the Tribunal. But the said discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The Tribunal has given no reasons for not granting the interest from the date of claim application till the date of award. The apex court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi V. Union of India[1], held thus: “We therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court dated 24.05.2007 affirming the order of the trail Court and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the same.” Following the said ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, the claimants are entitled to simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of award. 16 The CMA No.4827 of 2004 is allowed accordingly. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 08.09.2011 Kvsn [1] (2009) 7 SCC 372