IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.790 OF 2008 & 95 OF 2010 Between in C.M.A.No.790 of 2009: Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Kadasi Lasumamma and others. …RESPONDENTS Between in C.M.A.No.95 of 2010: Kadasi Lasumamma and others. …APPELLANTS A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.790 OF 2008 & 95 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A.No.790 of 2008, is directed by the Railways against the order, dated 25.04.2008, in O.A.A.No144 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Kadasi Odelu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed. 2. C.M.A.No.95 of 2010, is filed by the appellants/applicants aggrieved by the same order in not awarding interest from the date of application till the date of award. 3. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 06.03.2003 the deceased along with his wife and son went to Secunderabad to attend function at their relatives house and while return journey, they boarded Krishna Express by purchasing two journey tickets from Moulali to Pothkapalli and boarded train Nos. 00495 and 00496. In the early morning they got down the train at Kazipet and continued their journey to Pothkapalli by boarding Singareni Fast passenger train No.323. While travelling in the passenger train, the deceased went to wash basin and accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train in between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway Stations and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 5. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per the Station Master, Uppal on 08.03.2003, no accidental fall or untoward incident was recorded in the control book; that no message was issued to SI/GRP regarding the untoward incident; that the death of the deceased was not attracting the provision of Sections 123 (c) and 124 of the Railways Act; that the applicants have not filed tickets except quoting ticket numbers; and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident fall from the train? 4. To what relief?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 8. After considering oral and documentary the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted compensation. Challenging the same, Railways preferred the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the applicants failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that no eye witnesses were examined to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train on that day and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that as police mentioned the ticket numbers in the inquest report as well as the in the final report, it can be inferred that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the dead body was noticed by the driver of another train which was lying by the side of the track in between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway Stations and therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with impugned order. 11. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), 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 a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 12. Though it is seriously disputed that the deceased was not having any valid ticket, at the same time, police noticed two tickets and the numbers have been clearly noted in the inquest report as well as in the final report. The objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The ticket numbers mentioned in the inquest report as well as in the final report are not shown to be incorrect or in valid to travel in a passenger train. The police also filed final report stating that the deceased died as a result of falling from the running train. The Railway administration has not adduced any evidence to show that no untoward incident had taken place and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination also stated that those injuries can be possible by falling from a running train. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he had accidentally fallen from the running train, resulting in his death. Therefore, after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. With regard to appeal filed by the applicants for grant of interest, it is clear that the applicants filed C.M.A.No.95 of 2010 for grant of interest from the date of application till the date of award. As seen from the record, the application was pending before the Tribunal for about five years. It is not the case of the applicants that they had been reporting ready on all adjournments when the application was pending before the Tribunal. It is also not the case of the applicants that because of laches on the part of the respondent, the claim petition has been pending before the Tribunal for the last five year. For the lapses on the part of the applicants in not getting ready before the Tribunal, they cannot derive any advantage to claim interest from the date of application till the date of award. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for interest. 14. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 12, 2011 YVL