( 1 ) THIS Judgment, according to Law, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against the sole respondent, under Section 23 of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) ORDERS, dated 19-7-1996, of the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, secunderabad (Tribunal), made in oaa. No. 25/95,of its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned railway Advocate for the sole respondent. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant in this C. M. A. corresponds to the sole applicant in the said o. A. A. No. 25/95, of the file of the said tribunal. The sole respondent herein corresponds to the sole respondent therein. ( 6 ) THE parties are, here-in-after, referred to, as such, as in the said O. A. A. , lest, so specified. ( 7 ) THE applicant filed the said o. A. A. No. 25/95, against the sole respondent, under Section 125 of the said Railways act, 1989,read with Section 16 of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 /-, etc. , in respect of the fractures sustained by him, in respect of left hand, left leg, right leg, and also, compensation of Rs. 7,600/- for loss of personal belongings, on 2-12-1994, around 2. 00 p. m. , because of accident, by way of derailment of Bombay-Kanyakumari Jayanti janatha Express, bearing Train No. 108l, between Bhakarapeta and Kanamalopalle railway Stations, etc. ( 8 ) THE said Tribunal enquired into the said O. A. A. No. 25/95, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P. W. I, and exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. A-1 and A-2, and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its impugned Orders, set forth in para 2, supra, as under:- "dismissed the O. A. A. , in toto" ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the sole applicant in the said O. A. A. filed the present C. M. A. , as set forth in para 1, supra, read with para 2, supra. ( 10 ) THE sole respondent did not file any independent C. M. A. , questioning any part, or, parts, of the forgoing impugned Orders on any aspect, or, aspects. Nor, did it file any cross-objections in the present C. M. A. , questioning, any part, or, parts, thereof. ( 11 ) HENCE, the findings of the said tribunal, in its impugned Order, insofar as the same are not questioned by both the parties, became, final and binding on all the concerned, due to efflux of time, to question them, etc. ( 12 ) IN para 11 of the impugned Orders, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 16,000/ -. as compensation for fracture of major bone humerus the radius Ulna and one limb, on the basis of the same being scheduled injuries in Part III, as item No. 34, of the Railway accident (Compensation) Rules of 1990. In the same paragraph, in respect of the other injuries, which are not scheduled, the tribunal applied its mind, and, on the basis of the medical evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,000/ -. Those injuries include fractures of toe, and other fingers of the left foot of the applicant, and also, the big toe of the left foot was hanging immediately after the accident. He was found. unf. it to hold the post of a Senior Gang Man, which he was holding on the relevant date In para 11, therefore, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 36,000/ -. in para 12 of the impugned Order, the Tribunal awarded rs. 2,800/-, towards compensation for loss of luggage, as against the O. A:a. claim of rs. 7,600/ -. So, therefore, the total compensation awarded by the impugned orders is Rs. 38,800/ -. ( 13 ) HOWEVER,by way of Ground of Appeal in the present C. M. A. , the applicant-appellant did not question the adequacy of the quantums of compensation awarded thereby. Hence, the same became final. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, while so finding, that, the applicant is entitled for the foregoing compensations, the said Tribunal, on the basis of its finding on issue No. 1, that, the applicant is not a bona fide passenger, travelling in the train, at the relevant time, refused to award any compensation, and, hence, dismissed the O. A. A. , as aforesaid. ( 15 ) THE applicant was travelling in the said train at the relevant time, under a railway Privilege Pass. He is a Railway Senior gang Mart. ( 16 ) THE observation, and finding, of the said Tribunal, that, if a pass-holder breaks his journey at any station, other than the stations permitted for break of journey, and entrains the train at such station, he will be travelling unauthorisedly on such pass, and, hence, he is not a bona fide passenger, etc. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, I am of the opinion, that, he was holding a valid pass, and might have broken journey, at a given station, or, might have boarded the train, at non-scheduled station, but, at the same time, will not, ipso facto, render him not a bona fide passenger, within the, factual and legal, meaning, scope, and, ambit, thereof, as defined in Section 124 of the said Railways Act, 1987. ( 18 ) AT best, he may be liable for departmental action, if any, for such irregular boarding, or, getting down the train, but, in no case, it will not exonerate the statutory liability of the railways, to pay compensation, in respect of the injuries, etc. ( 19 ) SMT. Sundri and others v. Union of India and another, delivered, inter alia, interpreting sections 82-A, 66, 68, 113 and 122 of the repealed Railways Act, 1890, has no application to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, covered by the case, on hand. It pertains to a trespasser into the train, while, the case, on hand, pertains to a pass-holder, etc. , as aforesaid. ( 20 ) IT is vehemently urged by the learned railway Advocate, that, there is no statutory provisions, contained, either, in the Railways act, 1989, or, in the Railway Claims Tribunal act 1987, or, the Rules framed there-under, prescribing, of, warranting interest, much less, the rate, at which the same has to be awarded, and that, hence, no interest can be awarded, on any compensation being awarded by the Tribunal. ( 21 ) THERE is no statutory provisions contained in the said Railways Act, or, the rules framed there-under, warranting award of interest. However, that will not be the be- all, and, end-all, the matter. The applicant sustained the injuries so long back, as in the year 1994. ( 21 ) THERE is no statutory provisions contained in the said Railways Act, or, the rules framed there-under, warranting award of interest. However, that will not be the be- all, and, end-all, the matter. The applicant sustained the injuries so long back, as in the year 1994. The compensation to which he became statutorily entitled to can t be like that idle for so long a period. I am of the opinion, that, under the inherent Powers of the Tribunal, as contemplated by Rule 44 of the Railways Claims Tribunal (Procedure) rules, 1989, interest has to be awarded, exercising such inherent powers, to meet the ends of Justice. Mere awarding bare compensation fixed by the Tribunal will not, ipso facto, meet the Ends of Justice. I am of the opinion, that, for the compensation to which the applicant acquired right so long back, interest should be granted, and that, in the circumstances, at 9%, per annum, from the date of filing of the O. A. A. till actual realization thereof. ( 22 ) IN the forgoing facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Orders as liable to be set aside, insofar as it found, that, the applicant was not a bona fide passenger, and consequently, dismissed the O. A. A. , while confirming the rest ot the same, etc. , as is being done, hereunder, and the O. A. A. , has to be adjudged, as is being done, at the end of this Judgment. ( 23 ) NOWHERE in the Grounds of Appeal, the quantums of compensations awarded are questioned, and, instead, on the other land, it is urged, that, the Tribunal, having determined the compensation, erred in denying the relief, etc. , and the like. ( 24 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the C. M. A. , as under:- (I) Set aside the impugned Orders, set forth in para 2, supra, insofar as the same found, that, the applicant (appellant) is not a bona fide passenger, and, hence, dismissing the O. A. No. 25/95, of its file; (II) Consequently, recording a finding, that, the applicant is a bona fide passenger, and, hence, he is entitled for compensations, as arrived at by the said Tribunal, in that O. A. A. No. 25/95, and, consequently, adjudge thereupon, as under:- (a) The applicant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 38,800/-, with simple interest thereon, at 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the O. A. A. , till actual realization thereof; and (b) Direct the respondent, to pay to the applicant, the costs of the o. A. A; and (III) Direct the respondent herein, to pay costs of the C. M. A. , to the appellant.