THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1056 OF 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44987 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2009, in O.A.A.No.3 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Tonduri Adinarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the 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 adjudication of the claim till the date of actual payment. 2. The 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 C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. 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 brief facts are that on 06.12.1999, the deceased went to Powerpet railway station to give send off to his friend V.Nagaraju. The said V.Nagaraju purchased a journey ticket from Powerpet to Bhimadole for himself and a platform ticket for the deceased and handed over the said platform ticket to the deceased. When train No.471 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam passenger halted at Powerpet railway station, both of them boarded the train with luggage and placed the same under the seat and while the deceased was getting down from the train, he slipped and fell down from the train due to jerks of the train and his right leg was cut and separated and also his left foot was cut and separated. The deceased also sustained fracture near right eye. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru. During pendency of the Original Application, the deceased died on 04.03.2007, and the legal heirs of the deceased were brought on record as per orders, dated 11.09.2007 in I.A.No.388 of 2007. 5. The appellant- Railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that according to the Guard of the train, no untoward incident had happened on that day; that there was neither any alarm chain pulling nor any complaint from any one of the passengers about the untoward incident; that with a platform ticket, the deceased was not authorized to enter into the compartment in terms of Rule No.123.3 of IRCA Coaching Tariff; that the applicants are entitled to compensation only when the incident is covered by provisions of Section 123 ( c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger having purchased platform ticket on 06.12.1999 when the train No.471 Vijayawada –Visakhapatnam passenger arrived at Powerpet Railway Station? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act? 3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to A.5 were got marked and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. The Tribunal examined C.W.1. 8. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the accident in which the deceased sustained injuries is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124 A of the Act and the incident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in the clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. Challenging the same, the railways filed the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant – railways contended that the applicants produced a platform ticket showing that the deceased was a proper person to enter into the railway station; that the said Nagaraju, who was along with the deceased on the date of incident, was not examined to speak about purchasing the platform ticket for the deceased and handing over the same to him and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1, who is the deceased, is very clear that he went to Railway station to give send off to one V.Nagaraju and the said Nagaraju purchased a platform ticket for him; that after putting the luggage into the train and while getting down from the train, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries and amputation; that there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.1 and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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 the 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 is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling 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 accidentally fell down from the train and sustained cut injury on the right leg and left foot and both were separated. He also sustained fracture near right eye and his four fingers of right hand were cut and separated. The railway administration is not disputing about the untoward incident, whereunder the deceased sustained injuries and amputations. The word ‘passenger’ is defined under explanation to Section 124-A of the Act, which reads as follows: “For the purpose of this section," passenger" includes- (i) a railway servent on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident”. When a person enters into the railway station with a valid platform ticket, he is a ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Act. The evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that he went to railway station along with his friend V.Nagaraju. The said Nagaraju purchased a ticket for himself and also purchased a platform ticket for the deceased and handed over the same to him. For keeping the luggage, the deceased entered into the compartment and after keeping the luggage in the compartment while he was getting down from the train, he had accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries and amputation. No doubt, the said V.Nagaraju, who purchased the ticket, is the best person to speak about purchasing the platform ticket to the deceased. But, at the same time, non-examination of V.Nagaraju by itself does not necessarily lead to an inference that the deceased was not a passenger. If the evidence of A.W.1 is found true, correct and trustworthy, there is no legal bar for placing an implicit reliance on his evidence. If the evidence of A.W.1 is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, then only his evidence needs corroboration from the other evidence. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.1. A.W.1 was cross- examined at length. Even after cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to hospital. The possibility of missing of the ticket at the time of incident or in the process of his shifting to hospital, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.1 and accordingly, granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. With regard to cross-objections filed for not granting interest from the date of claim application till the date of award, there is no provision under the Railways Act, 1989 with regard to the grant of interest from the date of the petition till the date of passing of the award. Granting of interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of passing of Award is the discretion of the Court, which has to be exercised judiciously. Section 34 C.P.C. and Section 3 of the Interest Act give discretionary power to the Court to award interest and the same has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi’s case (1 supra), and 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.” In view of the above decision, the applicants are entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of realization, on the compensation amount. Accordingly, the applicants are awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application 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/-. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and Cross Objections are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1056 OF 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44987 OF 2009 Between : Union of India … APPELLANT A N D Tonduri Adinarayana and others. … RESPONDENTS