1. The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the order dated 17.03.2009 made in O.A.A.No.231 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad.

2. The respondents in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed cross objections being aggrieved of non-granting of interest to the applicants-claimants/cross objectors as claimed by them.

3. Heard Sri T.S.Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, the learned counsel representing the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross objectors.

4. Sri T.S. Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Railway Claims Tribunal should have appreciated that the deceased-Kamalakar, fell down from a running train and the incident happened due to the negligence of the deceased and there was no fault on the part of the railway administration and hence, the compensation awarded cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would point out that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was holding a reservation ticket with berth traveling in reserved compartment and there will not be any possibility of any passenger falling from the train unless the passengers stands at the door of the running train and in the light of the same, the Tribunal should have negatived the relief. The learned counsel also pointed out the relevant provisions of the Railways Act and would maintain that the order under challenge being unsustainable and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Sri Subbarao Korrapati, the learned counsel representing the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross objectors, had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with as far as the awarding of compensation is concerned. The learned counsel also would further maintain that in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs., Union of India and another 2009 ACJ 2444, the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross objectors are entitled to the interest and hence, the cross- objections has to be allowed.

6. Heard the learned counsel on record.

7. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal.

8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal:-

(1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross-objectors is to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case?

(2) Whether the relief of interest prayed for by the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross-objectors to be allowed or to be negatived in the facts and circumstances of the case?

(3) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?

9. POINT NOS.1 and 2:-

For the purpose of convenience, these two points are being discussed together. The respondents/applicants-claimants filed O.A.A.No.231 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter in short referred to as "The Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience), Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Bandapalli Kamalakar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" for the purpose of convenience). The learned Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, granted the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the respondents/applicants-claimants/cross-objectors and the appellant herein/respondent in the aforesai