IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.313 OF 2010 Date:20.08.2011 Between:- G. Subba Reddy and 4 others. ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.313 OF 2010 JUDGMENT:- 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2009 in O.A.A.No.345 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation for the death of the son of the applicants 1 and 2, husband of 3rd applicant and father of applicants 4 and 5 in an untoward incident of fall from a train on 7/8.7.2005, was allowed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants for granting of interest from the date of application till the date of award. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The deceased, who was travelling with two persons, boarded train No.7604, Yashwantpur-Kacheguda Express on 7/8.7.2005 had a valid ticket and due to the jerk of the train fell down accidentally between Malyala and Dhone stations and died on the spot. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and pleaded that the deceased in a sleepy mood, opened the main door instead of the toilet door and died on account of his own fault. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? And 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to applicants granting @ 9% p.a from the date of award till the date of payment of the same. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the appellants/applicants are entitled to interfere from the date of claim application till the date of award? 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are entitled to interest from the date of petition till the date of award and hence he prays to allow the appeal. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contented that the Tribunal has passed the award correctly and hence the same cannot be interfered with by this Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. No doubt, it is the discretion of the Tribunal to grant interest or not, but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The Tribunal has not given any reasons while not granting the interest to the applicants from the date of claim application till the date of award. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied has filed a decision in support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied a decision reported in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs. Union of India and another[1] wherein it was held that: “We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court dated 24.5.2007 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.” 10. Therefore, following the above judgment, this Court is inclined to grant simple interest @ 6% per annum to the applicants from the date of the claim application till the date of award. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th August, 2011 Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.313 OF 2010 Date:20.08.2011 Gk. [1] 2009 ACJ 2444