THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 764 of 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.6534 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2009 in O.A.A No.409 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants consequent upon the death of one Uppu Raghuramaiah, (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who is the husband, father and son of the applicants respectively and directed the Railways to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of order, failing which they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. Aggrieved by the same order, the applicants filed the cross objections for not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of the application till the date of deposit of the awarded amount. 3. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicants, before the Claims Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 20/21.06.2003, while the deceased was traveling from Sullurpet to Nellore by train No.8690 Bokaro Express, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between Polireddypalle and Sullurpet Railway Stations, thereby sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 5. The Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that 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’) and since no journey ticket was found with the deceased, the deceased cannot be held to be a bona fide passenger and hence it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.8690 Bokaro Express, traveling from Sullurpet to Nellore on 20/21.06.2003? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief ? 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, AW-1 and A.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W. 1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked. Through Court, C.W.1 was examined and Ex.C1 was marked. 8. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 9. While granting compensation, the Claims Tribunal granted interest on the compensation amount from the date of award till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Cross Objections are filed by the applicants for interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the awarded amount. 10. Now the points for consideration are:- 1) Whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct? and 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any interest on the award amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of petition till the date of award? 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Appellant/ Railways vehemently contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train and that no railway ticket was produced to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation. He further contended that the claimants are not entitled for any interest, in view of the fact that the Act does not provide for grant of interest from the date of the petition till the date of award and therefore, he prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross objections. 12. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 would go to show that the deceased purchased journey ticket in his presence to go to Nellore and that he died as a result of falling from the running train and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident; that the Claims Tribunal after consideration of evidence on record, rightly held that the deceased died in an untoward incident. As regards the grant of interest on the compensation amount, he contended that the Claims Tribunal has not exercised its discretion judiciously in granting interest and no reasons are assigned for not awarding interest on the compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the awarded amount. Hence he prays to dismiss the appeal and grant interest on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of deposit of awarded amount. 13. No doubt, after the death of the deceased, the inquest was conducted in the presence of panchayatdars and in Ex.A1 inquest report, the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died as a result of falling from the running train. Further the police, after completion of investigation, filed final report stating that it is only a case of accidental death. From the material available on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 14. Coming to the aspect of bona fide passenger, no doubt, the police did not seize any railway ticket at the time of holding inquest on the dead body, but at the same time, the evidence of A.W.2, who accompanied the deceased to Sullurpet Railway Station, would go show that the deceased purchased the journey ticket in his presence to go to Nellore and subsequently he left the station after the deceased boarded the train. The evidence of A.W.2 remained un-rebutted. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly held that the Railways are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, and accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In so far as the cross objections filed for non-granting of interest from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the awarded amount, are concerned, there is abnormal delay of 534 days in filing the cross-objections against the order passed in O.A.A.No.409 of 2003 and the applicants have not come to the Court within the reasonable time. The applicants for the purpose of claiming interest have not properly explained the delay. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with award passed by the Claims Tribunal on the aspect of interest and accordingly the Cross Objections are also liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 10-08-2011 Gsn.