THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No. 433 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.23090 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.122 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad where under an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 to 3 towards compensation for the death of one K. Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). The applicants filed Cross Objections for not granting interest from the date of application till the date of realization. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, which occurred on 20.05.2001 between Shadnagar and Balanagar Railway stations with the involvement of a local train. It is alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket bearing No.05743506 and that he fell down from the train accidentally and died. In that connection the respondents 1 to 3 who are the wife and minor children of the deceased filed the O.A.A. 122 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that there is no cause of action for the respondents, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’). It is further contended that the Station Master, Shadnagar sent a message to the Government Railway Police, Kachiguda on 20.05.2001 as per which, the body of a male person was found lying between the tracks at K.M No.65/13-14 between Shadnagar and Balanagar, and, it is stated that only a body of a male was found and there is no direct eyewitness to the incident. It is further stated that the deceased might have been hit by a running train resulting in head injuries, as no other injury was found on the body, and hence, the act of the deceased attracts exception to Section 124-A of the Act and as such the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation as it is not a case of accidental fall from the train, and hence, the claim application is not maintainable in law. The appellant further stated that it appears that the ticket is a planted one, that if the ticket was available with the deceased, the same would have been mentioned in the inquest report, which, is however, silent on that issue, and therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger in terms of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed four (4) issues and during the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7. On the side of the appellant-Railways also one witness was examined as R.W.1 but no documents were marked. 6 After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the applicants as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of the order failing which the applicants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the Railways filed this appeal. However, for not granting any interest on the amount of compensation from the date of application till the date of realisation, the claimants filed the Cross Objections. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid and if so, whether the respondents are entitled to any interest? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased has fallen from the running train because of his negligence and criminal act and there was no fault on the part of the Railway Administration. He further contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased has fallen from the running train and the ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased and therefore he is not a bonafide passenger and prayed to set aside the impugned award by allowing the appeal. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents contended that it is a case of accidental fall from the running train and therefore the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal went wrong in not awarding interest to the applicants and hence he prays to grant interest to the applicants on the amount of compensation awarded. 10 There cannot be any dispute that the initial burden is on the applicants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. To prove the same, A.W.2 was examined and Ex.A.3, which was a season ticket was marked through A.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased. The evidence of A.W.1 and season ticket Ex.A.3 remained unchallenged. It is not the case of the Railway Administration that Ex.A.3 was manipulated or brought into existence for the purpose of claiming compensation. Further more, the evidence of A.W.2 would clearly go to show that while the deceased was going to bathroom, he accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained head injury. Admittedly, the dead body was noticed by the side of the railway track. Therefore, inasmuch as the deceased was having a valid season ticket, it can be said that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 11 Coming to the contributory negligence or criminal act on the part of the deceased, Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. When a person falls from a running train it can be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. There is no evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the case of the railways falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation to the respondents and hence that order needs no interference bythis court. 12 Coming to the aspect of interest, it is not in dispute that the Act does not contemplate for grant of interest. But, at the same time Section 34 of CPC empowers the Tribunal to grant reasonable interest. Therefore, from the date of petition till the date of award there shall be interest at the rate of 6% p.a and Thereafter at the rate of 9% p.a till date of realization. 13 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that with regard to granting of interest, a review petition is filed before the Supreme Court and seeks two months to deposit the interest. In view of the fact that a review petition is pending before the Supreme Court, the appellant is directed to deposit the interest granted by virtue of this order after two months from today. In respect of compensation the same shall be deposited forthwith. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the same. 14 The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Cross objections are partly allowed. No costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 04.08.2011 Kvsn