IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1149 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS(SR) NO.46630 OF 2009 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Annapurna and others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 14.07.2009, in O.A.A.No.213 of 2006 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 Sagiraju Venkata Raju (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 31.12.2005, 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. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that applicant No.1 is the wife, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents respectively of the deceased; that on 31.12.2005, the deceased along with his family members and other relatives (eighteen) was travelling by train No.7424 Narayanadri express from Secunderabad to Tirupathi on pilgrimage holding valid ticket and reservation in S-10 coach and started their journey from Secunderabad and due to jerks of the train, he accidentally fell down from the train at Renigunta between the platform and the bogie, sustained fatal injuries in the accident and died in the early hours of 01.01.2006. 4. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application stating that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Act and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased, 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.7424 Narayanadri express travelling from Secunderabad to Tirupathi on 31.12.2005? 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-4 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 7. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. For not granting interest from the date of application till date of Award, applicants filed 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 there was negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board a running train; that due to the negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; 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 deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 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. It is not in dispute that an untoward incident had taken place wherein the deceased died. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track. The First Information Report as well as the inquest report would clearly go to show that the deceased was having a valid journey ticket and the ticket number was mentioned in the two documents. As matter of fact, the Divisional Railway Manager submitted a report wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket. When the two requirements are proved, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are dependants of the deceased. 13. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because the said provision is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 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 for grant of interest by the applicants from the date of claim application till the date of Award, no doubt, there is no provision under the Railways Act, 1989, with regard to the payment of interest from the date of application till the date of order. But, at the same time, Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, provide for grant of interest. Granting of interest during the pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal is within the discretion of the Tribunal and that discretion has to be exercised judiciously. No reasons are assigned by Tribunal in not granting interest pendenti lite. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[1] wherein it is held as under: “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 awarded simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objections are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1149 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS(SR) NO.46630 OF 2009 Date:28.09.2011 AMD [1] AIR 2009 SC 3098