THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 309 of 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO. 45213 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 01.01.2008 in O.A.A No.193 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. 2. Aggrieved by the same order, the claimant filed the cross objections for not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of the application till the date of award. 3. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent/railways, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the claimant, before the Claims Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. 4. The brief facts are that, claimant filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that on 4.8.2001, he travelled by train no.352 passenger Ex. Secunderabad to Tenali in general compartment vide ticket bearing no.27234577, and while getting down at Tenali railway station he was standing near the door way with suite case, and at that time, one passenger while getting into the train dashed against the claimant and consequently he fell down in between platform and train, and sustained serious injuries to his right hand and other multiple injuries. 5. The respondent filed counter denying the averments in the claim application stating that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) or Section 124A of the Railways Act, and that the circumstances would reveal that the incident was caused by the said criminal acts of the claimant, which would disentitle him from claiming any compensation. 6. The claims tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train no.351 passenger travelling from Secunderabad to Tenali on 4.8.2001 ? 2) whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Tenali Railway station ? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief ? 7. During trial, A.W.1 was examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Ex.C1-which is G.D. copy was summoned by the Claims Tribunal. 8. The Claims Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant, directing the railways to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall accrue from the due date till payment. Challenging the award of compensation, the railways filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, whereas cross-objections were filed by the claimant for not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of award. 9. Now the points for consideration are:- 1)Whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct? and 2)Whether the claimants are entitled for any interest on the award amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of petition till the date of award? 10. Heard both sides. 11. The fact that the claimant was travelling in train no.352 from Secunderabad to Tenali in general compartment by purchasing ticket bearing no.272345577, is not in dispute. The case of the claimant that he accidentally fell down while getting down at Tenali railway station, is also not in dispute. Original ticket was seized by police during the course of investigation. The case of A.W.1 is that when the train was approaching the platform in Tenali, he came to the door along with suite case, and at that time, one passenger hurriedly entered into the compartment when the train was in motion, as a result he fell down on the track and sustained injuries. Practically, the evidence of A.W.1 and the recitals in Exs.A1 and A.2 remained unchallenged. Exs.A1 and A.2 would clearly go to show that the claimant fell down while he was getting down from the train. 12. It is the case of the railways that there was negligence on the part of the claimant in getting down from the moving train and therefore the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. Mere taking a plea is not evidence. The case of the railways that there was negligence on the part of the claimant, has not been established by adducing any other evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant sustained the injuries due to his negligence. Considering the fact that left leg below knee of the claimant was amputated, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and there are no grounds to interfere with the same, and accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. In so far as the cross objections filed for non- granting of interest from the date of the petition till the date of award, are concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others vs. Union of India and another[1], the appellant is entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of passing of the award. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the railways opposed the same on the ground that there is no provision under the Railways Act to grant interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award and that the decision of the Apex Court has no application, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. There is no provision under the Railways Act 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. 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 appellant/claimant is entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of realization, on the compensation amount. Accordingly, the claimant is awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization, on the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. 16. However, the learned counsel for the railways submitted that in the above matter, they have already filed a review petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the claimant is not entitled to withdraw the interest amount granted by this Court by virtue of this order for a period of two months from today. 17. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The Cross Objections are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 07.10.2010 DRK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 309 of 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO. 45213 OF 2009 DATE: 07.10.2010 C.M.A. No.309 of 2008 Between : Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Rly.. Secunderabad …APPELLANT A N D Sivalingam Chenchaiah, s/o. Raghavaiah and another …RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO. 45213 OF 2009 Between: Sivalingam Chenchaiah, s/o. Raghavaiah and another …Cross-objector And Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Rly.. Secunderabad …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU COMMON JUDGMENT in CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 309 of 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO. 45213 OF 2009 07.10.2010 [1] 2009 ACJ 2444