HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.940 of 2010 and Cross Objections (SR).No.2018 of 2011 Date: 21.02.2011 C.M.A.No.940 of 2010 : Between: Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant and Sk. Akber and another. … Respondents Cross objections (SR).No.2018 of 2011 : Between: Sk. Akber and another. … Cross objectors/ Respondents and Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Respondent/ Appellant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.940 of 2010 and Cross Objections (SR).No.2018 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT : Since both the appeal and the cross-objections arise out of the same order dated 12.7.2010 in O.A.A.No.98 of 2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 12.7.2010, in O.A.A.No.98 of 2004, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, allowing the application filed by the applicants, who are the son and daughter of the deceased-Sk. Jaimunnisa seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident of fall from the train, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Railway administration and cross-objections are preferred by the applicants for grant of interest from the date of application till realization. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for proper disposal of the appeal and the cross-objections may be stated as follows: The deceased-Sk. Jaimunnisa and her daughter purchased a combined ticket bearing No.13294207 to travel from Vijayawada to Bonakallu and boarded Train No.154 Vijayawada-Guntur Passenger, and while travelling in it, the deceased accidentally fell down at Vijayawada and died on the spot. Police registered a case and investigated into. The ticket found with the deceased was seized. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and thereafter the police filed the charge sheet. 4. The Railway administration resisted the claim stating that the deceased was not a victim of untoward incident as the Guard of the train reported that no untoward incident had happened on the relevant date of the incident, that the deceased herself was responsible for falling down from the running train, that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and, therefore, the applicants, who are the son and daughter of the deceased, are not entitled for compensation. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train No.154 Vijayawada-Guntur Passenger travelling from Vijayawada to Bonakkalu on 25.10.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 6. To substantiate the case of the applicants, the daughter of the deceased was examined as AW-1. On behalf of the Railways, the Railway Guard was examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R-1. The Police Constable of the Railway Police was examined as CW.1, Court witness. Certified copy of F.I.R. and other papers were marked as Ex.C-1 by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, and the material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased is a bonafide passenger and died due to the untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and accordingly allowed the application filed by the applicants granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of said order till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railway administration. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal in not granting interest from the date of the petition till the date of award, the applicants filed the cross- objections. 8. There cannot be any dispute that the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger train as a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket. Once these two aspects have been proved, then the burden shifts on to the Railway administration to adduce evidence to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 9. AW.1 is the daughter of the deceased. According to her evidence, she along with deceased, her mother boarded Train No.154 to go to Bonakallu. But, after boarding the train, on verification, they came to know that the train was not going to Bonakallu. Therefore, AW.1 got down and while the deceased was getting down, she slipped and fell from the train and died on the spot. The case diary of the police relating to the untoward incident and cause of death of the deceased was summoned, which was marked as Ex.C-1. A perusal of Ex.C-1 discloses that while the deceased was getting down from the train, she fell down accidentally and died on the spot, that the police also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by her. So the cause of death of the deceased while getting down from the train is not in dispute. 10. Further, the deceased was holding a valid ticket, because immediately after the incident, the police seized the ticket from the deceased during the inquest and that shows that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. If the Railway administration wants to disprove the case of the applicants that the death of the deceased is otherwise than in an untoward incident and if the cause of the death of the deceased falls under any one of the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the burden is on the Railways to establish the same. There is no evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased died otherwise than in an untoward incident. Therefore, the evidence of AW.1, coupled with the recitals in Ex.C-1, clearly establishes that the deceased while getting down from the passenger Train No.154 accidentally fell down form the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the necessary ingredients under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 for claiming compensation are established by the claimants. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal had rightly held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger train and accordingly awarded the compensation to the applicants. 11. Insofar 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 claimants 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 claimants are entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of passing of the award. 12. 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. 13. 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.” 14. In view of the above decision, the claimants are 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 claimants are 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.4,00,000/-. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross-Objections are allowed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 21.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.940 of 2010 and Cross Objections (SR).No.2018 of 2011 21.02.2011 (Msr) [1] 2009 ACJ 2444