Smt. Maini Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India
2009 Latest Caselaw 2747 Del

*       HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                     FAO No.361 of 2008

%             Judgment reserved on:16th July, 2009

              Judgment delivered on: 21st July, 2009


1. Smt. Maini Devi
 W/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand

2. Baby Sunita
D/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand

Appellant No. 2 being minor
Through her mother & natural Guardian
Smt. Maini Devi
R/o Village & Post Office
Sarra Kalan, District Kalan,
District Behraich, U.P.           ....Appellants
                    Through: Mr. N.K.Gupta, Adv.


                             Versus

Union of India
Through General Manager
Northern Railways,
Baroda House,
New Delhi                                 ...Respondent

                        Through: Mr. S.R.Narayan, Adv.


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                     Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                      No


FAO No.361 of 2008                                Page 1 of 5
 V.B.Gupta, J.

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the

judgment dated 11th July, 2008 of Railway Claim

Tribunal, Delhi (for short as „Tribunal), on limited

ground, that Tribunal ought to have awarded interest

@ 12% per annum on compensation amount and that

too from date of the accident, that is, 11th June, 2006

or from date of filing of claim petition.

2. Vide impugned judgment, Tribunal awarded

compensation to appellants to the tune of Rs.

4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from

the date of order (11th July, 2008) till the date of actual

payment.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants

that Tribunal failed to consider that Section 34 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short as „Code‟) is

applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal and it

ought to have awarded interest from the date of

accident or from the date of filing of petition. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel cited

Union of India v. M.Thankaraj and etc. etc., AIR

2000 Kerala 91.

4. It is not in dispute that Section 34 of the Code, is

applicable to the claims, made before the Tribunal.

That being so, there is no reason why appellants be

denied interest from the date of filing of the claim

petition. In M.Thankaraj (supra), it has been laid down

that;

"There is one more common question to be considered in this case that is regarding payment of interest. We are of the view that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of filing the petition before the Tribunal. In order to make the compensation just and fair it is only proper that interest is paid to the claimant from the date of filing the petition. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Smt. Laxmipati, AIR 1995 Madh Pra 90. It was held that even if Section 34 of C. P. C. has not been expressly made applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, there is no reason to hold that principles of Section 34, C. P. C. would be inapplicable. Court, therefore, directed payment of interest from the date of filing the petition before the Commissioner. The

same view was taken by the Madras High Court in Union of India v. Janardhanan, AIR 1998 Mad 272. In A.A. Haja Munuddian v. Indian Railways, AIR 1993 SC 361, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question whether the provisions of the Order 33 of the C. P. C. would be applicable to the proceedings before the Railways Tribunal. It was held that although the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the Rules thereunder do not specifically provide for the application of Order 33 of the C. P. C., there is nothing in the Act or the Rules which precludes the Tribunal from following that procedure if the ends of Justice so require. Nowhere in the Act is there any provision which runs counter to or is inconsistent with the provisions of Order 33 of the C. P. C. Same principle can be applied to hold that even though Section 34 of C. P. C. as such is not applicable, the principles contained therein can be made applicable to proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal."

5. In the light of principles enunciated in the above

judgment, there is no reason as to why appellants be

denied interest, from the date of filing of the petition.

6. As far as prayer of appellants for interest @ 12%

per annum is concerned, there is no ground to grant

interest @ 12% per annum. Interest @ 9% per annum

as awarded by trial court, is quite reasonable keeping

in view Bank Rates prevailing at present. Accordingly,

there is no ground for enhancement of rate of interest

from 9% per annum to 12% per annum.

7. So, impugned judgment is modified to the extent,

that respondent shall pay interest @ 9% per annum

from date of filing of petition, that is w.e.f. 12th

September, 2006, till date of actual payment.

8. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed

of.

9. No order as to costs.

July 21, 2009                             V.B.GUPTA, J.
Bisht