IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.786 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.1373 of 2010 Between: Union of India rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT And T.Ramadevi and 4 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.786 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.1373 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 17.03.2009 in O.A.A No.71 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of T.Vijaya Purnachandra Sekhar Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed directing the Railways to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order, failing which it is ordered that the said amount should carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. 2. The Cross-Objections are filed by the applicants under Or.41 Rule-22 of Cr.P.C against the same order for not granting interest from the date of application till the date of award. 3. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The facts of the case are that on 06.12.2002 the deceased along with his wife, the applicant, and his two daughters and son, the applicants 2 to 4, went to Tuni Railway Station to give send off to the applicant who was going to Secunderabad by train No.7015 Bhubaneshwar-Secunderabad Visakha Express, to attend the marriage of her relative. The applicant had purchased a ticket bearing No.73197128 and PNR No.622-6771983 for her travel from Tuni to Secunderabad, while the deceased had purchased a group platform ticket bearing No.K25043538 for himself, his two daughters and son. 5. It is pleaded that when the train No.7015 Visakha Express halted at Tuni railway station, the applicant and the deceased boarded a reservation coach under the instructions of the TTE and joined her relatives who were traveling from Vizianagaram. The deceased placed the luggage of the applicant inside the coach and both of them came to the door as the deceased was getting down from the train and that the train started with a jerk, due to which the applicant slipped and fell down from the moving train and the deceased who tried to save her also fell along with her from the train between the platform and the train resulting in severe injuries to both the applicant and the deceased. The train was stopped after passing some distance. Station Superintendent and other station staff immediately attended on the applicant and the deceased and shifted them to Railway Hospital, Tuni for first aid and from there to Government Hospital, Tuni. The applicant had sustained cut injury to left ankle, fracture of right leg below knee, lacerated wounds on buttocks, severe injury on the forehead causing twenty sutures. The deceased was declared dead by the Doctors. 6. The Railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the application stating that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sec.123(c) or Sec.124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for shot “the Act”). It is further stated that the Guard of the train reported that the train No.7015 left Visakhapatnam at 16.30 hrs and reached Tuni railway station at 18.23 hrs and the train left Tuni station at 18.25 hrs after the scheduled halt of 2 minutes, and stopped immediately due to chain pulling and that he found two persons, a male and a female, sustained injuries and that both of them were removed from the track and placed on the platform with the help of traveling public and his enquiries further revealed that the applicant is alleged to have sustained injuries and her husband died while attempting to make the applicant get into the moving train. Therefore, they have pleaded that the incident was caused by the criminal acts of the applicant and the deceased in attempting to board the moving train, which disentitle the applicant from claiming compensation. The respondent has further denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased. 7. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 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? 8. The applicant examined herself as AW 1 and also the Applicant No.4, the eyewitness to the incident, as AW.2 and the documents filed by her were marked as Ex.A1 to A8. On the side of the Railways one K.Satyanarayana, Sr.Passenger Guard of train No.7015 Express was examined as RW 1 and the copy of the rough journal filed by him was marked as Ex.R1. 9. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed both the applications awarding compensation. Challenging the order in OAA.71/2003, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant. For not granting interest from the date of application till date of award, applicants filed Cross-Objections. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 11. The learned standing counsel for the appellant-railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death as he was attempted to board the moving train, and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants contended that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased; that when the two requirements i.e., untoward incident and the bona fide passenger are established, the applicants are entitled to compensation; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. 13. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of 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 with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 14. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track, which was noticed by the Station Superintendent. The police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, while traveling in a train carrying passengers. The ticket of the applicant and the platform ticket bearing No.K25043538 of the deceased for himself, his two daughters and son were not shown to be incorrect or invalid. Therefore, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 15. It is the case of the Railway Administration that due to own negligence of the deceased, the incident had happened. Even assuming for a moment that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, that defence is not available to the Railway Administration in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal after considering evidence rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same, and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. In so far as Cross-Objections with regard to grant of interest from the date of application till the date of award is concerned, no doubt, it is the discretion of the Tribunal to grant interest or not and that discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Sec.34 of C.P.C empowers the Tribunal to grant reasonable interest during the pendency of original application while granting compensation. The Tribunal has not given any reasons for not granting the interest to the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants has relied on a decision in support of his contentions reported in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs. Union of India and another[1] wherein it was held that: “We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the 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 at the rate of 6 per cent simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment of the same.” 17. Following the above judgment, the applicants are awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of award. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, and the Cross-Objections are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 30.09.2011 Dsr [1] 2009 ACJ 2444