THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.721 OF 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR).No.4048 of 2010 14.09.2011 Between Union of India rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Pedada Butchaiah (died) and others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.721 OF 2009 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR).No.4048 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 12.03.2009 in O.A.A No.236 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of P. Dhananjayarao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4.00,000/- to the applicants directing the railway administration to pay the amount within two months from the date of the order and in the event of failure to do so, directed to pay interest @9% from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2) The applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that while the deceased, along with his two friends, was traveling in Faluknama Express from Srikakulam Road to Secunderabad holding a valid ticket, he accidentally fell down from the train between Namburu and Kakani stations, received grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3) The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the Keyman had found the body of the deceased and that if his friends were with him, they would have informed the railway authorities about the incident, but had not done so, and that when the body was found, a Gangman had watched over the body till the police came, that though the police found a cell phone, no ticket or pass was found on the body, that as per the guard of the train, there was no incident involving a fall from the train and that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and so the railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4) The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. For not grant of interest from the date of claim application till the date of award, the applicants filed the cross-objections. 5) Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6) Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and that due to his own negligence, the incident had happened and hence, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. 7) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants contended that the evidence of A.W.2, brother-in-law of the deceased, would clearly go to show that he along with the deceased and another friend purchased the tickets, boarded Faluknama Express, which was very crowded and stood in the corridor near the door through out the journey and that when they reached Nalgonda, they found the deceased missing, and on that AW.2 and his friend went back to Guntur at 13.00 hours where they saw the deceased last and after coming to know that a dead body had been found at Namburu, they went there, identified the deceased, attended inquest on the next day and after medical examination took the body to the parents’ house of the deceased; that the police accepted their version of the incident and concluded that the deceased had been traveling in Falaknuma express, fell from the train and died in an untoward incident; that the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased, is not available to the railways, and considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The learned counsel further contended that the tribunal erred in not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of application till the date of award and therefore he prays the Court to grant interest. 8) There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 traveling in the passenger train with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the railways want to resist the same, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the railways falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9) Insofar as the aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, it is contended by the railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. On coming to know about the incident, police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of investigation are admissible in evidence. Further more, during the course of investigation it seems that the police seized the ticket, which is marked as Ex.A4, from the pant pocket of the deceased. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket. 10) Coming to second aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The contention of the railways is that due to negligence of the deceased only, the incident had happened. There cannot be any dispute that the applicants need not prove negligence on the part of the railway administration in order to claim compensation in view of the fact that Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. If the applicants show that the deceased accidentally had fallen from the running train, then it can be said to be an untoward incident. Even if it is assumed that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation, unless the case of Railways falls under anyone of the defences available to the railway administration under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It is not a case where the case of railway administration falls under anyone of the exceptions to proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the respondents. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11) Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12) Insofar as the cross-objections are concerned, they are preferred by the applicants for not granting interest on the compensation amount from the date of application till the date of award. 13) There is no provision under the Railways Act, 1989 with regard to the grant of interest from the date of the petition till the date of passing of the award. Granting of interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of passing of Award is the discretion of the Court. Section 34 C.P.C. and Section 3 of the Interest Act give discretionary power to the Court to award interest and the same has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others vs. Union of India and another[1], and held thus: “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 appellants/applicants are entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award on the compensation amount. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award on the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 14) the cross-objections are accordingly allowed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 14-09-2011 ES [1] 2009 ACJ 2444