THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.996 OF 2010 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.1815 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 29.07.2010, in O.A.A.No.224 of 2004 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 Sections 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 Vujuri Lakshmi (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 20.07.2004, 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. The applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the parents of the deceased; that on 20.07.2004, the deceased came to Tadepalligudem station with her father, who purchased a ticket for her to Nuzvidu to visit her pregnant sister there and saw her boarding train No.432 Kakinada – Vijayawada Passenger; that her father returned home but while travelling in the train, the deceased slipped and fell down from train accidentally at a curve in between Pulla-Bhimadolu stations at Km.No.508/21-23 due to the jerks of the train and died; that the ticket was lost along with her clothes bag and money purse. 4. Railways filed the written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that the incident was alleged to have taken place on 20.07.2004 whereas the Keyman found the body only on the morning of 21.07.2004 and the Guard of the train stated that on 20.07.2004, the train had arrived at Pulla Railway station at 8.05 hours and left a minute later and no incident was reported, whereas if there was a fall from the train, it would have not gone unnoticed by some eye witness, who would surely have reported the matter. The alleged incident, if at all happened, was on account of self inflicted injury or criminal act of the deceased for which the railway is not liable to pay any compensation, and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants must provide proof that she was a passenger and that they were her legal heirs and dependents. 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.432 Kakinada-Vijayawada passenger travelling from Tadepalligudem to Nuzividu on 20.07.2004? 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.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 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. Aggrieved thereby, Railways filed the appeal, and for not granting interest from the date of claim application till the date of Award, applicants filed the Cross Objections. 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 circumstances in the case indicate that it is not a case of deceased falling from a running train; that in a busy track, the dead body was found unnoticed for about 24 hours; that the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a passenger in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he purchased a ticket and handed over the same to the deceased; that the dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the track which might not have been noticed by the passengers travelling in the trains passing through that track; that when a person forcibly falls down accidentally from the train, he may fall underneath the bushes or shrubs and in such circumstances, the dead body may not be noticed by the persons travelling in the train; that there no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal, and also prays to 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 requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two 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. The initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that he was a bona fide passenger of a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. With regard to first aspect, the dead body was found by the side of the track near the railway post. The police, after coming to know about the incident, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators. The mediators opined that it was a case of accidental fall from the running train. Similarly, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, has categorically opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the vital organs of the body. From the nature of injuries, it can be said that there is a possibility of deceased falling from a running train and sustaining injuries. It is not the case of the railway administration that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No doubt, there are no eye witnesses to speak as to how the incident had taken place but the Latin maxim Res ipsa loquitor would come into play when the incident is unnoticed by the persons. The dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the track. There are severe multiple injuries all over the body including the vital organs and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage. Therefore, from the nature of injuries, it can be inferred that the deceased might have fallen from a running train accidentally. 13. Coming to the aspect as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, A.W.1 is no other than the father of the deceased, who has categorically stated that he went to the railway station and purchased a ticket to travel in a passenger train and handed over the same to the deceased. Practically, the evidence of A.W.1 remained unchallenged. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to discredit his testimony. There is every reason for a father to accompany his daughter to the railway station so as to purchase a ticket. There is nothing unusual for A.W.1 to go to the railway station in order to purchase a ticket. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.1, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. As the two grounds are proved beyond preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. With regard to Cross Objections claiming interest by the applicants from the date of claim application till the date of Award is concerned, granting of interest during pendency of the claim application is within the discretion of the Court. As the applicants displayed lack of interest in the case, the Tribunal rightly disallowed interest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to grant interest on the compensation amount 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. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.996 OF 2010 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.1815 OF 2011 Date:20.10.2011 AMD