IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.647 of 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.25969 of 2010. Date:17.08.2011 C.M.A.No.647 of 2008:- Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Qamar Khatoon and others .. Respondents/Applicants and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.25969 of 2010:- Between:- Qamar Khatoon and others ..Cross Objectors/Respondents/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Appellant/Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.89 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 Mirza Iqbal Baig (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 06.04.2005 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. Applicant No.1 is the wife, applicant Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons, and applicant Nos.3, 7, 8 and 9 are daughters, of the deceased. On 06.04.2005, the deceased along with his wife, one daughter, grandson and one Isthar Begum was travelling by train No.166, Push Pull from Hyderabad to Kazipet holding ticket No.41559179 (for five persons) to visit Dargah at Kazipet. He alighted the said train at Jangaon Railway station for drinking water and again, he boarded the train. When he was at the door way, the said train started with a sudden jerk due to which, he fell down from the door between the platform and the bogie and died on the spot due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. 4. Railways denied the averments in their written statement and put the applicants to strict proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and also that the case falls under untoward incident and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.166 Push Pull train travelling from Hyderabad to Kazipet on 06.04.2005? 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-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, no witnesses were examined but Ex.R-1 was marked. 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. 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 conditions 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 satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act. 12. Insofar as the aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, Ex.A-4 is the copy of the ticket, which shows that the deceased was entitled to travel in the train in question and therefore, he is a bona fide passenger. Insofar as the point untoward incident is concerned, there is no dispute that the deceased died when he had fallen from a running train in between the train and the platform. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the railway administration does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Even if there is some negligence on the part of the deceased, it cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the applicants. The applicants need not prove the negligence on the part of the railway administration in causing the accident because Section 124- A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the appeal is devoid of merit. 13. With regard to claim of interest by the claimants from the date of claim application till the date of Award is concerned, the impugned order has been passed in the year 2008 and the present Cross Objections are filed by the applicants after lapse of more than two years. It is not a case where applicants 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. 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 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.647 of 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.25969 of 2010. Date:17.08.2011 AMD