In a Railway Claims case, the Jharkhand High Court decided that compensation interest should begin from the actual date of the accident. The court also stated that the tribunal's previous stance, which proposed starting interest payments from the date when the delay was condoned, is not legally tenable.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner's husband died after accidentally falling from a train. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs 8 Lakhs with a 6% interest rate, starting from the date the delay in filing the claim was condoned. The Tribunal ordered that a significant portion of the compensation awarded should be placed in a fixed deposit for a duration of three years. The current appeal challenges this tribunal judgment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the direction to fix deposit a major part of the compensation for three years contradicts established legal principles.
Furthermore, he contended that the Tribunal's decision to award interest at 6% per annum should be raised to 12% per annum, calculated from the date of the accident (25/26.02.2018) rather than from 17.03.2021, the date the application was accepted after the delay was condoned.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel argued that the claim application was filed on 02.08.2019, significantly later than the incident date of 25/26.02.2018. He submitted that the delay was only condoned on 17.03.2021, when the application was admitted for hearing. Therefore, he contended that the appellants are not entitled to interest from the date of the incident. Additionally, the counsel maintained that the current rate of 6% per annum simple interest is fair and reasonable.
Observations of the Court:
The bench noted that right to claim compensation from the railway administration would be acquired by the injured from the date of said incident by relying on the Apex Court’s judgement in Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714. The bench also referred to Pratap Narayan Singh Deo vs. Sri Nivas Sabata and Another (1976) SCC 289 in which the said principle was upheld. It was observed that although the claim petition was initially barred by limitation, the delay was excused without cost as the claimants sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay.
The Court ruled that awarding interest from the date of delay condonation, as per the tribunal, is legally unsustainable. It was observed that considering inflation and recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, awarding interest at 9% per annum from the incident date is fair and reasonable.
The bench also noted the tribunal's direction for fixed deposit of compensation, based on the Government of India's notification amending the Railway Accidents Rules. The Court stated that the appellants are free to seek tribunal's permission for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit, highlighting that there was no application for such withdrawal, thus upholding the tribunal's order in this regard.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Smt. Pratima Devi and others vs. The Union of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: M.A. No. 226 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Mr. Ganesh Ram
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
