IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1605 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.4107 OF 2010. Date:09.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Madeena Khatum and others. .. Respondents/Applicants COMMON JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.09.2008, in O.A.A.No.320 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 respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Nike Ahemmed (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 10.07.2005 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed Cross Objections aggrieved by the same judgment in not awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of Award. 3 . Applicants are the wife and sons of the deceased. On 10.07.2005, while the deceased was travelling in a general compartment by train No.7092 Express from Patna to Secunderabad along with his wife and grandson, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train near Krishna Bridge, Vijayawada in between Km.Nos.427/38-427/38-B posts, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 4. Railways denied the averments of the petition in their written statement stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that there was no incident of any fall of any passenger from the train; that there was no incident of alarm chain pulling; that the Keyman reported about lying of a dead body in between Km.Nos.422/38-C and 427/38-B on 3rd line at about 7.40 hours on 11.07.2005; and denied that the incident was an untoward incident and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7092 travelling from Patna to Secunderabad on 10.07.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and they filed a copy of the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, granted compensation. Aggrieved thereby, Railways filed the appeal, and for not granting interest, applicants filed the Cross Objections. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Railways contended that the untoward incident happened due to the negligence of the deceased; that therefore, the railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation and this aspect of the case has not been properly dealt with by the Tribunal; and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the negligence on the part of the deceased is not a ground for dismissal of the claim; that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal, and also grant interest from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till the date of passing of the order. 11. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. It is also not in dispute that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. When these two aspects are established beyond preponderance of probability, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to the compensation. The only defence taken by the railway administration is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because it is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is untenable and the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. With regard to claim of interest by the applicants from the date of claim application till the date of Award is concerned, the impugned order has been passed in the year 2005 and the present Cross Objections are filed by the applicants after lapse of more than four years. It is not a case where applicants were reporting ready in original application while it was pending before the Tribunal. If the delay occurred for non- disposal of case due to railways, then certainly applicants are entitled for interest from the date of petition till the date of Award. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case where interest on Award can be granted. Hence, both the appeal as well as the Cross Objections are liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1605 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.4107 OF 2010. Date:09.09.2011 AMD