THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.676 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.26429 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed by the railways against the order, dated 14.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.357 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of respondent No.1 herein, was allowed. 2. The claimants filed cross-objections aggrieved by the same order in not awarding interest from the date of application till the date of Award. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 05.09.2002, Avula Sathyanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), along with two others was travelling in a passenger train bearing No.525 from Devarakadra to Arepalli with a valid ticket. When the train reached Wanaparthi Road, and while the deceased was going towards toilet to attend calls of nature, due to sudden hit of the door of the compartment to the body of the deceased, he accidentally fell down from the train and sustained injuries. As the co-passengers raised alarm, the train was stopped and the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Kurnool. While undergoing treatment in the hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the claim petition. 4. The respondent - railways filed the written statement stating that though the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train, the deceased sustained injuries due to his own negligence and therefore, the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the respondent – railways prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the deceased Avula Sattenna? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.525 passenger, travelling from Devarakadra to Arepalli on 05.09.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Wanaparthy Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked, on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. For not granting interest from the date of petition till the date of Award, claimants filed cross-objections. 8 . Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased had fallen down from the train due to his own negligence; that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 1 0 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-objections by granting interest. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident, while the deceased was travelling in train No.525 from Devarakadra to Arepalli. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket to travel in the said train. But, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant herein is that due to the negligence of the deceased, the incident has taken place. AW.2 is the eyewitness to the incident. He categorically stated that when the deceased was proceeding to toilet, due to sudden jerk of the compartment, the door the compartment came into contact with the deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained head injury. The evidence of AW.2 remained unchallenged. So, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of his own negligence cannot be accepted. Except taking a bald plea, there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal to show that because of the negligence of the deceased only, an untoward incident has taken place. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the evidence of AW.2, which would go to show that the deceased sustained head injury in an untoward incident and accordingly, granted compensation. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 12. Insofar as the cross-objections are concerned, in view of a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court i n Tahazhatha Puratul Sarabi V. Union of India[1], wherein it is held thus: “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.” the cross objectors/applicants are entitled for simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of Award. 13. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.676 of 2008 is dismissed and Cross Objections (SR) No.26429 of 2010 is allowed granting simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of Award to the cross objectors/applicants. There shall be order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 21, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.676 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).No.26429 OF 2010 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Smt. A. Mayamma @ Smt. A. Manemma and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.676 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).No.26429 OF 2010 September 21, 2010 [1] AIR 2009 SC 3098