THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1080 of 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44989 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2009 in O.A.A.No.273 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Kagita Sandeep (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. The respondents/applicants filed cross-objections aggrieved by the same order in not awarding interest from the date of application till the date of order. 3. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 05.08.2004 the deceased in order go to Visakhapatnam came to Vijayawada Railway Station along with Ch.Sujatha and his cousin Chaitanya, purchased Second Class journey ticket from Vijayawada to Berhampur and boarded train No.2842 Coromandel Express in Second Class general compartment. While he was travellilng in the said train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Tadepalligudem railway station at the end of platform No.2 and sustained severe multiple injuries. Immediately after the incident, railway staff of Tedepalligudem, attended the deceased and shifted to Government General Hospital, Tadepalligudem through Government Railway Police and for better treatment, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Eluru. The Doctors who treated the deceased, declared him as dead. Hence, the claim application. 5. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that there was no information to the Guard of train about the alleged fall, nor was there any incident of alarm chain pulling; that the applicants are put to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial “1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2842 Chennai-Howrah Coromandel Express travelling from Vijayawada to Berhampur on 05.08.2004? 2. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were got marked. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; and that he had accidentally fallen from Coromandel Express, sustained injuries and died in an untoward incident. Challenging the same, the railways filed the present appeal. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that the applicants have not produced any ticket and there is no pleading that A.W.2 purchased a ticket to the deceased at Vijayawada railway station and so, the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that she went to railway station along with the deceased and one Chaitanya; that as the deceased was young boy, A.W.2 purchased a ticket from Vijayawada to Berhampur as the ticket would not be issued to the destination viz., Visakhapatnam; that police examined A.W.2 during the course of inquest and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its 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. The dead body of the deceased was lying at the end of platform No.2 at Tadepalligudem railway station. The specific case of the applicants is that the deceased had fallen from the running train accidentally while he was travelling in Coromandel Express. Immediately after the incident, the railway staff, Tadepalligudem shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and later the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Eluru for proper treatment. But, the Doctor in the Government Hospital, Eluru declared, him as brought dead. Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. A.W.2 is one of the witnessed who was examined during the course of inquest. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of accidental fall from the running train. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased, died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident i.e., falling from the running train. 13. With regard to the second aspect, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or not, no doubt, the applicants have not produced the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. But, at the same time they examined A.W.2. She is no other than aunt of the deceased. The deceased went to the house of A.W.2 on the previous day and on the next day she along with the deceased and one Chaitanya went to railway station at Vijayawada. A.W.2 herself purchased the ticket and handed over the same to the deceased to travel from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam. She has categorically stated that since Visakhapatnam is less than 500 kilometers, she purchased a ticket from Vijayawada to Berhampur and handed over the same to the deceased. There was every possibility for A.W.2 to purchase a ticket as the deceased was an young boy. So, the presence of A.W.2 at Vijayawada Railway Station is not specifically denied or disputed. It is quite probable for a person like A.W.2 to go to railway station along with some other person to give send off to the deceased who was a young boy aged about 10 years. Except giving a suggestion that she did not purchase a ticket and hand over the same to the deceased, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony. The Tribunal has rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. The evidence of A.W.2 leaves no room to doubt that she purchased a ticket and handed over the same to the deceased. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. When the deceased had fallen from the running train, he sustained several injuries. After falling from the running train, there was possibility of missing of the ticket. As the deceased sustained injuries in the accident, in the first instance, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and later, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Eluru. So in that process of shifting the deceased to several places, the possibility of missing of the ticket, cannot be ruled out. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. With regard to cross-objections, no doubt, there is no provision under the Act with regard to the payment of interest from the date of application till the date of order. But, at the same time, Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, provide for grant of interest. Granting of interest during the pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal is within the discretion of the Tribunal and that discretion has to be exercised judiciously. 15. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[1] “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.” In view of the above decision, the applicants are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and cross-objections are allowed granting simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 20, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1080 of 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44990 OF 2009 Between : K.Prasad and another. …APPELLANTS A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1080 of 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44989 OF 2009 20.10.2011 YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 2444