THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.Nos.1202 OF 2009 & 913 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 CMA No.1202 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 05.10.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.196 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 to 3 towards compensation for the death of one Ramba Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and aggrieved by not granting interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award, the applicants filed CMA No.913 of 2011. 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in CMA No.1202 of 2009. 3 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 30.09.2003 the deceased while travelling by train No.6003 from Anakapalli to Rajahmundry with a valid ticket bearing No.0537781 accidentally slipped and fell down at Anakapalli railway station and sustained severe injuries to his right leg and died while undergoing treatment on 01.10.2003. Hence, the respondents who are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that one person tried to board the running train inspite of passengers and the staff warning him not to do and though the train was gaining speed, he tried to catch the train and fell between the platform and the train and was shifted to hospital where he died and that the incident was not an accidental fall and the same is a self infliction and hence the applicants are not entitled to any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial the first applicant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the respondents/applicants. On behalf of the appellant one witness was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within three months from the date of order with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till realization. As stated supra, aggrieved by the award granting Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondents towards compensation, the appellant filed CMA No.1202 of 2009; and for not granting interest to them on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of award, the respondents filed CMA No.913 of 2011. 7 Now the points for consideration are i) Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? And ii) Whether the respondents are entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of award? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board the moving train and that the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation to the applicants for the negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore the applicants are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the defence of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration so as to deny the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and hence applicants are entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest to the respondents/applicants from the date of claim application till the date of award. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the applicants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 11 It is not in dispute before this court that an untoward incident had taken place wherein the deceased fell down accidentally from the running train and his right leg above the thigh was run over by the wheels and thereafter he died. Basing on the information given by the railway authorities, the police registered a case and investigated into. During the course of inquest the police found a ticket on the body of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that the objective finding of the investigating officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The applicants produced Ex.A.4 ticket which shows that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. So, from the above, it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. 12 The main ground, which the Railway Administration has taken is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death. The plea of negligence is not available to the Railway Administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Unless the case falls under any one of the exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the applicants cannot be denied compensation. In the present case, the case of the Railways does not fall under any one of the clauses in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No evidence of whatsoever is adduced by the Railways so as to contend that the case falls under any one of the exceptions of section 124-A of the Act. 13 In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal preferred by the appellant i.e. CMA No.1202 of 2009 is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. 14 Insofar as the appeal preferred by the respondents/applicants is concerned, granting of interest during the pendency of the claim application is within the discretion of the Tribunal. But the said discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The appeal was pending before the Tribunal for a period of five to six years. It is not the case of the applicants that they were reporting ready on all the adjournments, but the respondent Railway Administration had taken time and that there were no lapses on their part for not disposal of the case when the application was pending before the Tribunal. So, for the lapses on the part of the applicants, they cannot derive any advantage by claiming interest. Hence in the absence of evidence to show that they were diligently prosecuting the case, they are not entitled to interest from the date of petition till the date of award. Hence the CMA No.913 of 2011 is also dismissed. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 08.09.2011 Kvsn