THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.725 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.26428 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed by the Railways against the order, dated 15.04.2008, in O.A.A.No.64 of 2005, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the respondent/applicant, was allowed. 2. The claimant filed cross-objections aggrieved by the same order in not awarding interest from the date of application till the date of order. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 27.02.2005, the applicant was travelling in train No.166 passenger, from Secunderabad to Jangoan, holding valid ticket bearing No.26203315. When the train reached Jangaon Station, while the applicant was alighting at the said station, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train due to sudden jerk of the train and sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Thereafter, she was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, for treatment. Hence, the claim petition. 4. The respondent - railways filed the written statement denying that the applicant was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train; that as per the Guard of the train, there was no alarm chain pulling; that the incident might have happened due to the criminal act of the applicant and therefore, the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the respondent – railways prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.166 passenger, travelling from Secunderabad to Jangoan on 27.02.2005? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, AW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked, on behalf of the applicant. On behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1 was got marked. 7. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train and sustained multiple injuries in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. For not granting interest from the date of petition till the date of Award, claimant filed cross-objections. 8. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train; that due to her own negligence, she had fallen down from the train; that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 1 0 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-objections by granting interest. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent/applicant was travelling in the train bearing No.166 from Secunderabad to Jangoan, in view of the fact that police seized a ticket from the applicant. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. When the train was about to stop at Jangoan, the respondent while getting down from the train fell in between the platform and compartment of the train and as a result, her left leg and left hand were crushed. Thereafter, she was immediately shifted to the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. In the hospital, both the left leg and left hand of the respondent were amputated. Therefore, the injured has accidentally fallen from the train and sustained multiple injuries in an untoward incident. 12. What is untoward incident is defined under Section 124A of the Act. When a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicant to show that she was a bona fide passenger and that she sustained injuries in an untoward incident while travelling in a train. 13. The evidence of AW.1 is very clear that when she was getting down from the train, lot of other detraining passengers from the compartment also rushed towards the doorway and she was pushed from the train, as a result she accidentally fell in between compartment and platform and sustained multiple injuries. Therefore, it is an untoward incident. There was no evidence to show that due to the negligence of the applicant, she had fallen down from the train. Except taking a plea, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the railways to substantiate the case. Mere taking a plea is not a proof to show that an untoward incident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 14. Insofar as the cross objections are concerned, in view of a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tahazhatha Puratul Sarabi V. Union of India[1], wherein it is held thus: “We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the 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 at the rate of 6 per cent simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment of the same.” the cross objector/applicant is entitled for simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of Award. 15. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.725 of 2008 is dismissed and Cross Objections (SR) No.26428 of 2010 is allowed granting simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of Award to the cross objector/applicant. There shall be order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 21, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.725 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.26428 OF 2010 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Gollepalli Siddamma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.725 OF 2008 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.26428 OF 2010 September 21, 2010 [1] AIR 2009 SC 3098