THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1082 of 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44990 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2009 in O.A.A.No.277 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Abdul Rehman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the railways to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. The respondents/applicants filed cross-objections aggrieved by the same order in not awarding interest from the date of application till the date of order. 3. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 26.09.2003 the deceased went to Gulbarga railway station and purchased two group passenger journey tickets bearing No.47712943 for three adults and 47712944 for four children and boarded train No.359 Solapur-Falaknuma passenger in general compartment. When the train was rolling into Godamagura railway station, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train due to jerks of the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 5. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 ( c) (2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); that enquiries of Station Master, Godamagura revealed that one male person aged about 40 years was run over and killed by train No.359 down passenger at Godamagura station yard; that it is not an accidental fall attracting the provisions of Section 123 (c ) (2) or Section 124-A of the Act; that the alleged incident, if any, was caused by criminal acts of the deceased and as such the applicants are disentitled from claiming compensation; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Abdul Rehman? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.359 Solapur-Falaknuma passenger travelling from Gulbarga to Falaknuma on 26.09.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near Godamagura railway station? 4. To what relief?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A8 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were got marked. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, the applicants are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, the railways filed the present appeal. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the applicants have not produced the ticket during the course of the investigation; that Ex.A.1 was produced for the first time during the trial and so, no reliance can be placed on it; that there was negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that Ex.A.1 is not denied or disputed by the railways; that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that the inquest report would clearly go to show that the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall from the running train; that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died or sustained injuries. Untoward incident includes the person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. The evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 is very clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Ex.A.1 is not denied or disputed by the railways. Furthermore, Ex.A.1 is not shown to be invalid ticket. No evidence was adduced by the railways to show that Ex.A.1 was invalid ticket. From the evidence of A.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of railway yard. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased had categorically stated that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. It is not the case of the railway administration that there was foul play or suspicious circumstances, resulting the death of the deceased. 13. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased 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 under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section124-A of the Act. The claims Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. No doubt, there is no provision under the Act 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. 15. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[1] “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.” 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. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and cross-objections are allowed granting 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. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 20, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1082 of 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44990 OF 2009 Between : Union of India. …APPELLANT A N D Sareefa Begum and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1082 of 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.44990 OF 2009 20.10.2011 YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 2444