IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 452 OF 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.10621 OF 2011 Between : The Union of India …APPELLANT A N D T.Krishnachaitanya …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 452 OF 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.10621 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 11.12.2008, in O.A.A.No.129 of 2006, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent-applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, failing which the railways are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. The applicant filed cross-objections aggrieved by the same order in not awarding interest from the date of application till the date of order. 3. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts are that, on 22.10.2005, the applicant in order to go from Vijayawada to Eluru to attend College along with his friend, purchased surcharge tickets to their valid 2nd class quarterly season tickets and boarded train No.2718 Vijayawada – Visakhapatnam Ratnachal Express in second class general compartment. While travelling, the applicant went to attend nature calls and from there when he went to wash basin to wash hands, suddenly he slipped and fell down accidentally from the said train near Powerpet Railway Station, as he was hit by the door of the compartment due to jerk of the said train and his both legs were severely crushed and separated under the wheels of the said train and he also sustained other multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the Clerk in-charge of Powerpet Railway Station, had given First Aid, and thereafter, shifted the applicant to Government Hospital through Railway Police and admitted him as inpatient. His both legs were amputated. Hence, the claim application. 5. The appellant- Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the applicant as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 ( c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.2718 Ratnachal express travelling from Vijayawada to Eluru on 22.10.2005? 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?” 7. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, he examined himself as AW-1 and Exs. A1 to A8 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant – railways contended that due to negligence on the part of the injured only the accident had taken place and therefore, it amounts to self inflicted injuries; that this aspect of the case has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal; that the applicant is not entitled to compensation; and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant contended that the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train; that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to show that due to negligence on the part of the injured only the accident had occurred; furthermore the defence of negligence on the part of the applicant is not available to the Railway administration; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicant is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the applicant sustained injuries; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent- railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the appellants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124 A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train as a passenger with a genuine and valid ticket. With regard to the second aspect i.e., whether the injured sustained injuries in an untoward incident or not, it is also not in dispute that the applicant had accidentally fallen from the running train and his both legs were cut. He was aged about 17 years at the time of the accident. No evidence was adduced by the Railway administration to show that due to negligence on the part of the injured only the accident had occurred. Therefore, the contention that there was negligence on the part of the injured cannot be accepted. Furthermore, no such defence is available to the railway administration. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided above, and so, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal Rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Insofar as the cross objections are concerned learned counsel for the applicant relied on 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 24.05.2007 affirming the order of the trail 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.” No doubt, cross-objections are preferred at a belated stage to grant interest from date of application till the date of order. But, considering the fact that the injured was aged about 17 years at the time of the accident and his both legs were amputated and as per Tahazhatha’s case (1 supra) the applicant is entitled for simple interest @6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award 13. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.452 of 2009 is dismissed and Cross Objections (SR) No.10624 of 2011 are 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 no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 09, 2011 YVL [1] AIR 2009 SC 3098