THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1287 of 2000 DATE:16.09.2009 Between: Union of India, represented by its General Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant And Zubeeda Begum and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1287 of 2000 ORDER: The respondents filed O.A.A.No.26 of 1998 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad bench, for compensation on account of death of Riyaz Ahmed, husband of 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 6. It was pleaded that Riyaz Ahmed went to Krishna station in Mahabubnagar District, with a view to travel to Raichur, and boarded a train No.6529, after purchasing a ticket. It was stated that while boarding the train, he slipped down, due to sudden jerk, at about 22.10 hours. He is said to have died in the Government Hospital, Raichur, while undergoing treatment for the injuries. The appellant opposed the O.A.A. on several grounds. It was pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and that he tried to board a moving train. The other grounds were also urged. Through its order, dated 23.09.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The first ground urged by the appellant is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. This was dealt with by the Tribunal as Issue No.2. It was pointed out that though the Station Master of Krishna stated that the ticket recovered from the dead body of the deceased was not issued on 09.01.1998, the Booking Clerk, who was examined as R.W.1, was not able to explain, as to when the ticket was issued. The fact that the date ‘09.01.1998’ was embossed upon the ticket, was not denied. Once it emerges that the ticket with a particular date was found on the dead body of the deceased, the appellant cannot plead otherwise. It was not even alleged that the ticket was planted on the dead body of the deceased. The second ground is that the deceased contributed to the accident. Here again, the evidence is totally lacking. The record clearly discloses that the deceased fell in the process of boarding into the train. Whether the accident occurred on account of the sudden jerk of the train or the lack of diligence on the part of the deceased, is a pure question of fact. Section 124-A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act places an obligation on the Railways to pay compensation, even though there is no negligence on their part. If the appellant wants to evade the liability by attributing the contributory negligence, a specific plea is required to be taken for that, and evidence must be adduced. No effort was made by the appellant in this regard. The third ground of attack is about the interest. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12% per annum, which is excessive. In the matters of this nature, interest is awarded at 6% per annum. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the interest to 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 16th September, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1287 of 2000 16th September, 2009 CBS