THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 90 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (S.R.) No.26427 of 2010 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 15-10-2008 in O.A.A.No.545 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 25-10-2006, the deceased-Vemireddy Narayana Reddy purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.7201 U.P.Express at Vijayawada to go to Yerrupalem 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 as perthe enquiries, it is revealed that one male passenger tried to get down from the train, while it was in motion, and fallen and on account of his own negligence he died and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 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 No.7201 U.P. Express traveling from Vijayawada to Yerrupalem on 25-10-2006? 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 order. 16. 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. 17. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[1], wherein, it was 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.” 18. In view of the above decision, the applicants are entitled to 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the railways is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the applicants are allowed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr [1] A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 3098