THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No. 417 of 2009 & CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.10397 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.12.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.168 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one Bandapalli Kamalakar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). The applicants filed Cross Objections for not granting interest from the date of application till date of realization. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 04.03.2006 night at 10.30 PM the deceased came to Nellore Railway station with a view to go back to his native place Tirupathi and purchased one journey ticket No.81945679 for himself and boarded into train No.274 passenger. That on the intervening night of 04/05.3.2006 at about 01.45 hours, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down at Venkatachalam Railway Station due to the speed and jerks of the train and as he sustained serious injuries he was taken to Government hospital, Gudur. But in view of his serious condition, he was further taken to SVRR Government hospital, Tirupathi and while taking treatment, he died on 10.03.2006. 3 The appellant/Railways contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that as per the findings of the enquiry report, the deceased admittedly travelled on the foot board and he was hit by the platform while the train was entering Venkatachalam Railways Station and his act of travelling on foot board is an offence punishable under section 156 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that the act of the deceased in travelling on foot board carelessly and negligently amounts to self inflicted injuries which is one of the exceptions to untoward incident; and put the claimants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased under section 123(b) of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.274 passenger train travelling from Nellore to Tirupathi on 4.3.2006? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants one witness was examined as A.W.1 and six documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.6. On the side of the appellant one witness was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the applicants as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this appeal. However, for not granting any interest on the amount of compensation, the claimants filed the Cross Objections. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid and if so, whether the respondents are entitled to any interest? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in sitting on the foot board and therefore it is not an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Act and hence the Railway Administration is not liable to pay the compensation. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is a case of accidental fall from the running train and therefore the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal went wrong in not awarding interest to the claimants and hence he prays to grant interest to the claimants on the amount of compensation awarded. 10 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. If the case of the Railway Administration falls in any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124-A of the Act, then only the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation. The cause for the death of the deceased is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Though it is contended that the deceased was sitting on the foot board at the time of accident, but at the same time, it is not a case of falling under any of the exceptions provided under section 124-A of the Act. When a passenger accidentally falls from a running train, it can be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of this court reported in Balagoni Siva Prasad Vs. Union of India, Rep. By General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderbad[1] wherein a learned Judge of this court relied on the decision of the apex Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar & Others[2]. At para No.12 of the judgment, the learned Judge observed as under: “12. In the above case, the Apex Court held that ‘death of the deceased while trying to board the train did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A and hence, the case was clearly covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Act’. It was further held that ‘Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.’ 13. In the above case also, the Apex Court rejected the contention of the Railways that there was no fault on their part an there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to board the running train and therefore, the railways are not liable for compensation. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, it must be held that the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim on the ground that the Appellant had fallen from the train due to his own negligence while boarding and therefore, the railways are not liable to pay compensation, in view of the exception contained in the proviso to Section 124- A of the Act, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. As held by the Apex Court in the above decision, the expression ‘accidentally falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process and in view of applicability of doctrine of strict liability in respect of claims arising under Section 124-A of the Act, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The respondent-railways is therefore held liable to pay the compensation to the Appellant for the injuries sustained by him. 11 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the legal principle laid down by the apex court, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the claimants and that order needs no interference of this court. 12 Coming to the aspect of interest, it is not in dispute that the Act does not contemplate for grant of interest. But, at the same time section 34 of CPC empowers the Tribunal to grant reasonable interest. Therefore, from the date of petition till the date of award there shall be interest at the rate of 6% p.a and thereafter at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of realization. 13 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that with regard to granting of interest, a review petition is filed before the Supreme Court and seeks two months to deposit the interest. In view of the fact that a review petition is pending before the Supreme Court, the appellant is directed to deposit the interest granted by virtue of this order after two months from today. In respect of compensation, the same shall be deposited forthwith. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 14 The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Cross objections are partly allowed. No costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 04.08.2011 Kvsn [1] 2008 (5) ALT (605) [2] 2008 (6) SCJ 209