THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 122 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (S.R.) No.2019 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 04-11-2008 in O.A.A.No.241 of 2006, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 31-05-2006, the deceased-Kanamala Ramesh Babu purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.273 passenger at Tirupathi to go to Singarayakonda and soon after it moved, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Sec.123 (c ) or Section 124-A of the Act and there are no proof to show that the applicants are the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application, awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs granting 30 days’ time to Railways to deposit the same, failing which, it is ordered that the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of that order till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-railways have filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants and perused the record. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is legal and proper? 8. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the compensation in view of the laches committed by the deceased. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration under the Act and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to the severe injuries sustained in the accidental fall. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. 12. Admittedly, the defence of the negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the Railway administration under Section 124-A of the Act, as the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim stating that their case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden to prove and establish the same is on the railways. No such evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the present case falls under any one of those exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 13. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. So far as Cross Objections are concerned, the respondents- applicants have filed cross objections for not granting interest from the date of application till the date of order on the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased. 15. The only question is with regard to the payment of interest. The Tribunal has not awarded interest from the date of application till the date of the order. 16. As seen from the record, it is clear that the respondents- applicants have filed the claim petition in the year 2006. The Tribunal awarded compensation on 04-11-2008. The respondents filed the cross objections with a delay of 308 days claiming interest from the date of petition till the date of award. The delay was condoned. For the lapses on the part of the respondents, they cannot derive any advantage. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that there was no fault on their part for pendency of original application before the Tribunal for two years. It is also not the case of the respondents that because of lapses on the part of the respondents, the claim petition had been pending before the Tribunal for two years. It is also not the case of the respondents that they were always ready to proceed with the case. 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. 14. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections are dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr