High Court · 2025

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 394 of 2011 Appellant :- Union Of India Through The General Manager North Central Respondent :- Mohd. Taki And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A. Case No. 0400527 dated 02.12.2010, whereby, in a death case, compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of the award, and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment.

3. The instant appeal is also reported to be barred by limitation by 1 month and 14 days.

4. The record indicates that notices were issued to the respondents, which have been duly served, yet none has appeared on behalf of the claimants-respondents.

5. Since the appeal is of the year 2011, the Court has considered the application seeking condonation of delay and finds that the ground shown is sufficient.

6. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated as having been filed within time.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the instant appeal, has urged that it was a case of a run-over by a train and there was no evidence led by the claimants to prove the accidental fall. It was also urged that the record would indicate that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, inasmuch as, at the time of preparation of the panchnama, no journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased; rather, the said ticket appears to have been planted and this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the observations of the Tribunal in granting a dual rate of interest is not in accordance with law, and thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

9. Apparently, on 15.06.2004, Mohd. Baseem was allegedly travelling from Shikohabad Railway Station to Bharthana Railway Station on Train No. 8102 Dn, for which he had purchased a valid ticket bearing No.68008. While the train was running between Balrai and Jaswant Nagar Railway Stations, it is alleged that the deceased accidentally fell from the train and died on the spot. It is in the aforesaid context that the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal, bearing O.A. No.0400527.

10. The claim was contested by the Railways, who took the plea that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, nor was it a case of accidental fall; rather, the body of the deceased was found by the keyman at 18:55 hours between Km. No. 1178/23 to 1173/26 and thus it was a case of run-over by a train. Therefore, on that ground, it was submitted that the claim petition be dismissed.

11. The Tribunal framed four issues and, considering the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he had died on account of an accidental fall. Thereafter, it went on to award compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the award, and 9% per annum thereafter till the date of actual payment, vide the award dated 02.12.2010, which is under challenge before this Court.

12. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears that the father of the deceased, Mohd. Akeeb, was examined as a witness, who submitted a copy of the ticket and clearly explained that the same was provided to him by the concerned police authorities. As far as the pleadings are concerned, no specific plea was raised by the Railways to allege that the said ticket bearing No.68008 was fake, or that it was not issued from Shikohabad Railway Station, or that it did not relate to the date on which the accident occurred. The only plea taken by the Railways was the fact that the body of the deceased was first seen by the keyman at 18:55 hours. In support thereof, the alleged keyman was never examined, nor was his evidence placed on record. It was only the affidavit of Sri Ashwani Kumar, Senior Commercial Inspector, who was examined as a witness who in his affidavit mentioned about the alleged keyman but did not disclose the identity of the said keyman nor the statement of the keyman was got deposed before the Tribunal.

13. In the absence of any cogent evidence to displace the proof regarding whether it was an accidental fall or a case of run-over, the averments and submissions made by the counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted.

14. The Tribunal has relied upon the said ticket, which could not be shown to be false or fake. In such circumstances, where there was a clear averment made by the father of the deceased that the said ticket was handed over to him by the concerned police authorities, there was nothing more that the claimants were required to do. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, having arrived at a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 8102 Dn, cannot be doubted and the said finding is in accordance with the material on record and as per law.

15. There is no other evidence on record to contradict the aforesaid fact. Apart from this, once a person is travelling on a train with a valid ticket, there is no plausible reason why he would get down between two stations and get run-over by some other train. In any case, the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 are beneficial in nature and if the plea of the Railways was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, then the burden to prove the same lay upon them — which has not been discharged satisfactorily.

16. Accordingly, the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does not impress the Court and is hereby rejected.

17. As far as the second submission regarding dual rate of interest is concerned, that appears to have some force, inasmuch as now it is well settled that the rate of interest which is to be awarded has to be in the manner in which it is provided and it cannot be said that in case the amount is not paid within a certain time, a higher rate of interest would be applicable, as that amounts to a penalty, and penal rate of interest cannot be granted.

18. As far as the issue of dual interest is concerned, this aspect has been considered by this Court in Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC Online SC 1922 & Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saleem and Others; 2014 (32) LCD 3931 and relying upon a decision of the Apex Court, it has been now well settled that grant of dual rate of interest is not permissible that is to say that in case if the amount is deposited within certain time the award would attract 6% per annum interest from the date of application till the date of the award, and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. This is penal interest in nature which is not permissible and to that extent the findings of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence to that effect, the award can be partly modified. However, insofar as the quantum is concerned, the same is statutorily fixed by the Act, hence does not require any interference. All other findings on bona fide passenger and accidental fall are affirmed.

19. Accordingly, this Court finds that the award dated 02.12.2010 is affirmed except for the modification that the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application to the date of its actual payment. All other findings are affirmed. The award dated 02.12.2010 is affirmed to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Costs are made easy.

20. The awarded sum along with updated interest shall be paid by the Railways to the claimants-respondents within a period of sixty days from today. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Shubhankar (Jaspreet Singh, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 394 of 2011 Appellant :- Union Of India Through The General Manager North Central Respondent :- Mohd. Taki And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A. Case No. 0400527 dated 02.12.2010, whereby, in a death case, compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of the award, and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment.

3. The instant appeal is also reported to be barred by limitation by 1 month and 14 days.

4. The record indicates that notices were issued to the respondents, which have been duly served, yet none has appeared on behalf of the claimants-respondents.

5. Since the appeal is of the year 2011, the Court has considered the application seeking condonation of delay and finds that the ground shown is sufficient.

6. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated as having been filed within time.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the instant appeal, has urged that it was a case of a run-over by a train and there was no evidence led by the claimants to prove the accidental fall. It was also urged that the record would indicate that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, inasmuch as, at the time of preparation of the panchnama, no journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased; rather, the said ticket appears to have been planted and this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the observations of the Tribunal in granting a dual rate of interest is not in accordance with law, and thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

9. Apparently, on 15.06.2004, Mohd. Baseem was allegedly travelling from Shikohabad Railway Station to Bharthana Railway Station on Train No. 8102 Dn, for which he had purchased a valid ticket bearing No.68008. While the train was running between Balrai and Jaswant Nagar Railway Stations, it is alleged that the deceased accidentally fell from the train and died on the spot. It is in the aforesaid context that the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal, bearing O.A. No.0400527.

10. The claim was contested by the Railways, who took the plea that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, nor was it a case of accidental fall; rather, the body of the deceased was found by the keyman at 18:55 hours between Km. No. 1178/23 to 1173/26 and thus it was a case of run-over by a train. Therefore, on that ground, it was submitted that the claim petition be dismissed.

11. The Tribunal framed four issues and, considering the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he had died on account of an accidental fall. Thereafter, it went on to award compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the award, and 9% per annum thereafter till the date of actual payment, vide the award dated 02.12.2010, which is under challenge before this Court.

12. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears that the father of the deceased, Mohd. Akeeb, was examined as a witness, who submitted a copy of the ticket and clearly explained that the same was provided to him by the concerned police authorities. As far as the pleadings are concerned, no specific plea was raised by the Railways to allege that the said ticket bearing No.68008 was fake, or that it was not issued from Shikohabad Railway Station, or that it did not relate to the date on which the accident occurred. The only plea taken by the Railways was the fact that the body of the deceased was first seen by the keyman at 18:55 hours. In support thereof, the alleged keyman was never examined, nor was his evidence placed on record. It was only the affidavit of Sri Ashwani Kumar, Senior Commercial Inspector, who was examined as a witness who in his affidavit mentioned about the alleged keyman but did not disclose the identity of the said keyman nor the statement of the keyman was got deposed before the Tribunal.

13. In the absence of any cogent evidence to displace the proof regarding whether it was an accidental fall or a case of run-over, the averments and submissions made by the counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted.

14. The Tribunal has relied upon the said ticket, which could not be shown to be false or fake. In such circumstances, where there was a clear averment made by the father of the deceased that the said ticket was handed over to him by the concerned police authorities, there was nothing more that the claimants were required to do. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, having arrived at a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 8102 Dn, cannot be doubted and the said finding is in accordance with the material on record and as per law.

15. There is no other evidence on record to contradict the aforesaid fact. Apart from this, once a person is travelling on a train with a valid ticket, there is no plausible reason why he would get down between two stations and get run-over by some other train. In any case, the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 are beneficial in nature and if the plea of the Railways was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, then the burden to prove the same lay upon them — which has not been discharged satisfactorily.

16. Accordingly, the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does not impress the Court and is hereby rejected.

17. As far as the second submission regarding dual rate of interest is concerned, that appears to have some force, inasmuch as now it is well settled that the rate of interest which is to be awarded has to be in the manner in which it is provided and it cannot be said that in case the amount is not paid within a certain time, a higher rate of interest would be applicable, as that amounts to a penalty, and penal rate of interest cannot be granted.

18. As far as the issue of dual interest is concerned, this aspect has been considered by this Court in Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC Online SC 1922 & Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saleem and Others; 2014 (32) LCD 3931 and relying upon a decision of the Apex Court, it has been now well settled that grant of dual rate of interest is not permissible that is to say that in case if the amount is deposited within certain time the award would attract 6% per annum interest from the date of application till the date of the award, and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. This is penal interest in nature which is not permissible and to that extent the findings of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence to that effect, the award can be partly modified. However, insofar as the quantum is concerned, the same is statutorily fixed by the Act, hence does not require any interference. All other findings on bona fide passenger and accidental fall are affirmed.

19. Accordingly, this Court finds that the award dated 02.12.2010 is affirmed except for the modification that the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application to the date of its actual payment. All other findings are affirmed. The award dated 02.12.2010 is affirmed to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Costs are made easy.

20. The awarded sum along with updated interest shall be paid by the Railways to the claimants-respondents within a period of sixty days from today. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Shubhankar (Jaspreet Singh, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench