THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 4129 of 2004 & 4372 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, are preferred aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2004 in O.A.A No.92 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. C.M.A. No.4129 of 2004 is filed by the Railways challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas C.M.A. No.4372 of 2004 is filed by the claimant for not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of the application till the date of award. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being taken up for disposal by this Common Judgment. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are that, claimant filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that on 11.2.2001, he sustained injuries in an untoward incident of accidental fall while travelling in train no.406 Guntur- Nandyal passenger near Donakonda railway station on 11.2.2001 from Narasaraopet to Donakonda holding II Class journey ticket no.71150. 4. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stating that there is no cause of action for the applicant to claim compensation as the incident does not fall under the purview of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c) or 124A of the Railways Act and further denied that the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train. It is further stated that on enquiries made by the railways, it is revealed that the incident was caused on account of own criminal act of the petitioner and so the railways are not liable to pay compensation and the injuries sustained by the applicant amounts to self-inflicted injuries which is one of the exceptions under Section 124A of the Railways Act. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.406 passenger travelling from Narasaraopet to Donakonda on 11.2.2001 ? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Donakonda railway station ? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the injuries sustained in the alleged incident ? 4. To what relief ? 6. During the enquiry, the claimant filed his affidavit in support of his case and got marked Exs.A1 to A.4. On behalf of railways, affidavit of R.W.1-Assistant Station Master, Donakonda was filed. 7. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant sustained the injuries in an untoward incident and therefore, the Railways are liable to pay the compensation, and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation, granting time of two months to the railways from the date of said order to pay the amount failing which the applicant was entitled to claim interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the said order till realisation. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed. 8. Now the points for consideration are:- 1 ) Whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct? and 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any interest on the award amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization ? 9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Railways vehemently contended that the claimant is entitled for compensation if he sustained the injuries in an untoward incident; that, there was negligence on the part of the applicant/injured and therefore he is not entitled for any compensation; that, the claimant failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train and he sustained the injuries in an untoward incident and so, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. He further contended that the claimant is not entitled for any interest, in view of the fact that the Railways Act does not provide for grant of interest from the date of the petition till the date of award and therefore, he prays to allow the C.M.A. No.4129 of 2004 and dismiss the other C.M.A. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for claimant contended that the claimant was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train no.406 Guntur-Nandyal Passenger with a valid ticket; that, he sustained the injuries when he fell down from the running train due to sudden jerks at the outskirts of Donakonda railway station, which is an untoward incident; that the Claims Tribunal after consideration of evidence on record, rightly held that the claimant sustained the injuries in an untoward incident. As regards the grant of interest on the compensation amount, he contended that though the Railways Act is silent with regard to payment of interest, Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide for grant of interest from the date of petition till the date of award which is within the discretion of the Court; that the Claims Tribunal has not exercised its discretion judiciously in granting interest and no reasons are assigned for not awarding interest on the compensation date of petition till the date of realisation. Hence he prays to allow the C.M.A. No.4372 of 2004 and dismiss the other C.M.A. 11. In the decision relied on by the counsel for the railways in Union of India, South Central Railways v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah[1], it is held thus: “The expression ‘untoward incident’ in Section 124A of the Act, which has been defined inter alia to mean the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers (in sub-clause (2) of clause (c) of sec.123 of the Act) does not comprehend injury or death occasioned by his negligence, carelessness, wrongful act or prohibited conduct, disregard of the requisite standard of care obligated by a person travelling on a train or any such conduct of a passenger which might reasonably be expected to result in his injury or death, as a resultant injury or death would, in such circumstances, be the consequence of a self-inflicted injury.” 12. The fact that on 11.2.2001, the claimant was travelling in the train no.406 Guntur-Nandyal passenger from Narasaraopet to Donakonda, is not in dispute. The railways did not dispute the validity of the ticket held by the claimant. Hence, he was a bona fide passenger because he was having a valid ticket to travel in the train. 13. The incident of sustaining the injuries by the claimant is not disputed by the railways. When a plea has been taken by the railways that the injuries sustained by the claimant are due to his own negligence or that they were self-inflicted by the claimant himself, the burden is on the railways to establish the same. There is no evidence adduced by the railways to show that the injuries sustained by the claimant were self-inflicted by him or that he sustained the same because of his own negligence. R.W.1 only testified that he came to know through some persons about the falling of the claimant from the running train. Therefore, except that testimony, there is no other evidence. Hence, it can be held that the claimant sustained injuries in an untoward incident. 14. The claimant was treated in Government General Hospital, Guntur and he sustained traumatic amputation of his right arm. Ex.A3-C.T. scan shows that the claimant sustained undisplaced fracture of left parietal bone with soft tissue swelling in scalp at left parietal and right temporal region with pneumocephalus. Item 1 of Part-III of Schedule of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 provides an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- for amputation through shoulder joint, and the same is rightly awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Considering the head injury, which is a non- schedule injury, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was awarded. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the claimant has successfully proved that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train No.406 Guntur-Nandyal passenger and while travelling in the train, he accidentally fell from the train and sustained the injuries. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly held that the Railways is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and hence, therefore, no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, and accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4129 of 2004 is liable to be dismissed. 16. In so far as C.M.A. No.4372 of 2004, which is filed for non-grant of interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant relied on a decision in in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others vs. Union of India and another[2], wherein it is held thus: “We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify 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 @ 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.” Hence, in view of the above decision, the claimant is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of realization. Accordingly, the claimant is awarded interest @ 6% (simple) per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization, on the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 17. However, the learned counsel for the railways submitted that in the above matter, they have already filed a review petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the claimant is not entitled to withdraw the interest granted by this Court in this order for a period of two months from today. 18. Accordingly, C.M.A. No.4129 of 2004 is dismissed and C.M.A. No.4372 of 2004 is allowed. No costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 06.09.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 4129 of 2004 & 4372 of 2009 Date: 6.9.2010 C.M.A. No.4129 of 2004 Between: Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad …Appellant And P.Harikrishna …Respondent C.M.A. No. 4372 of 2004 Between: P.Harikrishna …Appellant And Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU COMMON JUDGMENT IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 4129 of 2004 & 4372 of 2009 6.9.2010 [1] 2004 (1) ALT 100 (FB) [2] 2009 ACJ 2444