IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1151 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS(SR) NO.46761 OF 2009 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Shaik Khursheed Begum .. Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 08.07.2009, in O.A.A.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondent/applicant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Shaik Jabeebulla (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 23.11.2004, was allowed. 2. The respondent/applicant filed Cross Objections aggrieved by the same judgment in not awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of Award. 3. The respondent/applicant filed the claim application stating that she is the mother of the deceased; that the deceased was working at Ponnur and used to go to Tenali and Bapatla on business work; that in the evening of 22.11.2004, he informed his mother that he was going to Tenali on business work and he would return after completion of his work and left the house for Tenali from Ponnur; that at Tenali, the deceased informed his relative Sk.Mastan Jani that he would go to Bapatla on his business work on the next day and from there, he would go to Machavaram to the house of his grandmother to invite her to attend a family function at his house at Ponnur; that on 23.11.2004, at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased, with a view to go to Bapatla and from there to go to Machavaram, accompanied by his relative Sk.Mastan Jani, went to Tenali Railway Station, purchased a II Class journey ticket from Tenali to Bapatla for Pinakini Express for him and purchased a platform ticket for his relative and handed over the platform ticket to him and the deceased boarded train No.2711 Pinakini express in II class general compartment in the presence of his relative and left for Bapatla by the said train, and Sk.Mastan Jani returned home after departure of the said train; that while travelling, due to speed and jerks of the train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the said running train at Km.No.373/0 in between Nidubrolu and Appikatla Railway Stations and his body was dragged by the said train, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. 4. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application and stated that the enquiries with on duty Guard of the train No.2711 revealed that the train arrived Nidubrolu at 6.56 a.m. and left at 6.57 a.m. and passed through Appikatla at 7.08 a.m; that there was no information to the Guard on train about the alleged fall nor was there any incident of alarm chain pulling to the train, and that the applicant is put to strict proof that she is the dependant of the deceased under Section 123(b) of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2711 Pinakini express travelling from Tenali to Bapatla on 23.11.2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were got marked but D.R.M. report was filed along with the written statement. 7. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the applicant had not produced the journey ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and therefore, she is not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant contended that A.W.2 has categorically stated that he saw the deceased purchasing a ticket and his evidence remained unchallenged; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicant is 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 is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. His dead body was found lying by the side of the track. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the railway accident. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, also opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him in the railway accident. So, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 13. With regard to the aspect of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, no doubt, the applicant had not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers, but, at the same time, she had examined A.W.2, who was present at the time of deceased purchasing the ticket. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of time of deceased purchasing the ticket is not specifically denied or disputed. Once the evidence of A.W.2 is to found to be trustworthy, true and reliable, then there is no legal bar in accepting the same. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to discredit the testimony of A.W.2. The Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. From the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased bought a ticket and boarded the train carrying passengers. There are absolutely no reasons to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. With regard to claim of interest by the claimant from the date of claim application till the date of Award in the Cross Objections is concerned, no doubt, there is no provision under the Railways Act, 1989, 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. 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] wherein it is held as under: “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 applicant is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order, and so, interest is granted accordingly. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objections are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1151 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS(SR) NO.46761 OF 2009 Date:28.09.2011 AMD [1] AIR 2009 SC 3098