THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.12 of 2009 and XOBJ (SR) No.6409 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 19-09-2008 in O.A.A No.133 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed in part. 2. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that on 09-05-2000, he went to Kavali Railway Station, boarded Train No.6032 Jammu Tawi Express with a season ticket No.61829 in order to go to Nellore, slipped and fell down accidentally from the moving train due to its jerks in between the train and platform and sustained grievous injuries to his right thigh and fracture to ribs penetrating to lungs. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that there was no incident of anybody falling from train at Kavali Railway Station and that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and it does not come under the provisions of Section 123 or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways, whereas the applicant filed the Cross Objections for enhancement of compensation. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that due to the negligence of the applicant, the incident had happened and hence, the applicant is not entitled to any compensation. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant contended that the respondent sustained injuries in the untoward incident and therefore he prays to enhance the compensation and that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railways, and considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there must be an untoward incident and in that untoward incident, a person died or sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. He filed Ex.A1, original season ticket, which shows that he is entitled to travel in a train carrying passengers. The evidence of A.W.1-applicant would go to show that he fell down from the train due to jerks and sustained grievous injuries to his right hip, hip joint and fracture to ribs. That aspect of the case has remained unchallenged. There is no evidence adduced by the Railway Administration to show that there was negligence on the part of the applicant. 10. Even assuming for a moment that the injuries are sustained by the applicant because of his negligence, the railway administration cannot avoid payment of compensation to the applicant because the defence of negligence is not available to it. There cannot be any dispute that Section 124 A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The claimant need not establish any negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions provided in the said proviso. 11. The evidence of A.W.3 would clearly go to show that the applicant sustained the following injuries: (1) left side rib fracture with haemothorax; (2) blunt injury abdomen; (3) fracture next of right femur; and (4) fracture of left medial mallelous left side. Considering those fractures, granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be said to be on higher side. The compensation was granted in accordance with the Schedule as provided under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. 12. So far as the Cross-Objections filed by the Cross-Objector/applicant are concerned, he has not sustained any major fractures so as to grant compensation more than what the Tribunal has granted. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is completely in accordance with law. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. The learned counsel for the Cross-Objector 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 Cross-Objector is entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of passing of the award. 14. There is no provision under the Railways Act, 1989 with regard to the grant of interest from the date of the application 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 within the discretion of the Court, which has to be exercised judiciously. 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.” 15. In view of the above decision, the Cross-Objector is entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till the date of award. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the Cross-Objections are partly allowed granting simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of claim application till the date of award and thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till actual deposit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Dt: 13.10.2011 kdl [1] 2009 ACJ 2444