APHC010264012021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Between: 1. J.PEDDI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YERS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE 2. J.BHAGYASRI, D/O. LATE J PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC- STUDENT 3. J.PRIYANKA, D/O LATE J. PRASAD, AGED BOUT 20 YEARS, OCC STUDENT 4. J.PREM SWAROOP, OCC- STUDENT NOS. 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS, REP., BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1) ALL ARE R/O PEDDAPETA, PAAKOLLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 205 OF 2021 J.PEDDI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YERS, HOUSEWIFE J.BHAGYASRI, D/O. LATE J PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, J.PRIYANKA, D/O LATE J. PRASAD, AGED BOUT 20 YEARS, OCC J.PREM SWAROOP, S/O LATE J.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, STUDENT NOS. 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS, REP., BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1) ALL ARE R/O PEDDAPETA, PAAKOLLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ...APPELLANT(S) AND THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): Counsel for the Respondent: M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2021 J.PEDDI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YERS, J.BHAGYASRI, D/O. LATE J PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, J.PRIYANKA, D/O LATE J. PRASAD, AGED BOUT 20 YEARS, OCC- S/O LATE J.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, STUDENT NOS. 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS, REP., BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1) ALL ARE R/O PEDDAPETA, PAAKOLLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ...APPELLANT(S) P. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH ...RESPONDENT 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 205 OF 2021 JUDGMENT: The Appellants herein are the Applicants No. 1 and 4 before The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, claiming interest as against the order, dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A II (U) No.44 of 2014. 2. The Appellants herein are the wife and children of Mr. J. Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “deceased’), has made a claim before the learned Tribunal for Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest from the Respondent/ Railways on account of death of the deceased due to untoward incident that occurred on 12.02.2013. The deceased with a view to go to Nellore on a contract Mason work, he reached Vijayawada Railway Station in the intervening night hours of 11/12/-12/-2013, purchased a II Class Super Fast Train Journey Ticket bearing No. B-71534162 from Vijayawada Junction to Nellore dated 12.02.2013 at about 00.04 hrs and hoarded the Train No.12764 Secunderabad – Tirupati Padmavathi Express. While travelling, as there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, suddenly the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at KM No.145/37-39 at the North of Platform No.3 of Manubolu Railway Station due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks of the running train and in the result, he sustained severe head injury and other multiple fatal injuries and died on spot. Hence, the claim. 3 3. The Respondent filed Written Statement by denying the claim of the Appellants herein and inter alia contended that the deceased was not possessing journey ticket and it is not a case of accidental fall, according to Divisional Railway Manager Report, but something else and therefore, the case falls within expectations (b) and (c) of Provision to Section 124-A and Section 123(c) of Railway Act, 1989. It is further contended that merely lying of dead body in railway premises does not by itself constitute untoward incident. It is a case of accidental fall from the train and it is a case of suspicious death. Therefore, the Railways is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellants herein and requested to dismiss the claim. 4. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be: 1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/ are dependant(s) of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 3) Whether the applicant(s) is/ are entitled to the compensation as claimed and what relief ? 5. During enquiry, the Appellant No.1 is examined as AW-1 and Ex.A1 to A5 documents were marked. On behalf of the Respondent, none was examined and got marked the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R1. 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, held that with regard to untoward incident, absolutely there is no evidence from the Respondent to show that death is covered under any of the exceptions 4 enumerated under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The Applicants by filing their affidavit has discharged the burden lying on them, therefore, the burden shifts upon the Respondent to prove contrary and held the issue in favour of the Claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Claimants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 7. Heard Mr. P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants and Ms. M. Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would mainly contend that the Tribunal went wrong in awarding the interest from the date of submission of mandate from which is unreasonable and unwarranted. The Tribunal ought to have granted the interest from the date of accident, but not from the date of submission of mandate. Therefore, the C.M.A is liable to be allowed. 9. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of Railway Act, 1989. Respondent submits that merely lying of dead body in railway premises does not by itself constitute ountoward incident. It is a case of accidental fall from the train and it is a suspicious death and the deceased not a bonafide passenger. Hence, the claim petition is not maintainable. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed. 10. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the deceased had a valid train ticket, which was for travel from Vijayawada to Nellore. Therefore, 5 it is not as if the deceased was a totally unauthorized passenger. The issue is that can a person who travels by a mistake just a few kilometers beyond his destination, automatically ceases to be a bonafide passenger as per Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989. Therefore, the Tribunal has also opined that once the deceased had a valid journey ticket, albeit for travel from Vijayawada to Nellore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 11. It is very curious to note that the Claimants filed this instant Appeal to grant interest by relying upon the decision of “Rena Devi v. Union of India”1. However, the Tribunal held that as per the said judgment, the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Since the Tribunal granted interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of incident to the date of realization, the Applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-, which is the higher amount. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondent relied on Common Order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018, wherein at Para 8 held as follows: “ However, in a subsequent Judgment referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the payment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, was pleased to observe that: In case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. If after applying 1 2004(6) ALD 302 6 reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claim would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. If however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment to the extent possible”. 13. Following the decisions supra and considering the opinion of the Tribunal, this does not find any merit to award interest over the Claim made by the Claimants in the light of foregoing discussion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased is quite reasonable and needs no interference. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The Respondent is directed to deposit compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the Claimants, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not paid. The Appellants are permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount in equal shares from the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 11.02.2026 KK