Delhi High Court
Laxmi Devi & Ors vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 244/2011
% Date of Decision: 30.05.2012
LAXMI DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Ms Aruna Mehta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. J.P. Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
1. Present is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 05.05.2010 passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 65/2004. By the
aforesaid judgment, the Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation
of Rs.4 lakhs to the appellants along with interest therein @ 9% per annum
from the date of order till realization of amount.
2. The grievance of the appellants is that the Railway Claims Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) ought to have granted interest from
the date of claim application. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for appellants has placed reliance on the orders passed by this court in FAO
Nos. 125/2011 and 241/2011 wherein the respondents have been directed to
pay interest from the date of filing of the claim application before the
Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the
present case interest is not awarded from the date of filing of the claim
application because delay has been caused by the appellants in disposal of
the claim application. It is contended that number of times amendment
applications were moved by the appellants for making correction in the
claim application and many times the appellants did not appear before the
Tribunal as a result of which, delay has been caused in the disposal of the
claim application and for the said delay the respondents could not be held
liable by paying interest to the appellants.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for appellants has contended that there
has not been any deliberate delay on the part of the appellants and the
amendment applications were moved twice and the amendments sought
were necessary for the disposal of the claim application. It is further
contended that no unnecessary adjournments had been taken by the
appellants, as is alleged by the respondent, as such, interest be awarded from
the date of filing of claim application. In support of his stand, the counsel
for appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of India & another :
(2009) 7 SCC 372.
5. I have heard the counsel for parties and perused the record of the
Tribunal.
6. In the present case, the claim petition was filed on 04.11.2004. The
first amendment application was moved on 10.08.2005 when the matter was
listed before the Tribunal for evidence of the parties. The said application
was adjourned to 27.10.2005. On the said date, there was change in the
Presiding Officer, as such, the matter was not taken up and adjourned to
16.01.2006. On the said date, the amendment application was allowed and
the appellants were allowed to correct the date of journey and the departure
time of train in the claim application and pursuant thereto the appellants had
filed amended claim application. Thereafter, the second amendment
application was filed on 29.01.2007 wherein also request was made for
certain amendments in the claim application. The said application was
rejected on 27.07.2007. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellants
approached this court by filing CM(M) No.1128/2007 and the amendments
sought by the appellants were allowed by this court vide order dated
19.01.2009. While allowing the said CM(M), this court also observed that
the application for amendment moved by the appellants was not frivolous
application or was not filed by them to delay the trial, as such, the same was
allowed.
7. I have also perused the complete order-sheets of the Tribunal. There
is nothing on record to show that any unnecessary adjournments had been
taken in the matter by the appellants, as is alleged. Rather the record shows
that the respondent-Railways had taken few adjournments for leading their
evidence.
8. There is nothing on record to show that there was any mala fide on the
part of the appellants in seeking the amendment of claim application or
there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the appellants to delay the
disposal of the claim application. Rather, this court while allowing the
amendments sought by the appellants in the claim application has observed
that the amendments sought are not frivolous or an attempt to delay the trial.
8A. The Supreme Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs.
Union of India & another (supra) where there was no delay on the part of
claimants in making the claim has held that claimants are entitled to interest
on the awarded amount from the date of application. The relevant para of
the judgment is reproduced below:-
"The only question to be decided is since when is such
interest payable on such a decree. Though, there are two
divergent views, one indicating that interest is payable from
the date when claim for the principal sum is made, namely, the
date of institution of the proceedings in the recovery of the
amount, the other view is that such interest is payable only
when a determination is made and order is passed for recovery
of the dues. However, the more consistent view has been the
former and in rare cases interest has been awarded for periods
even prior to the institution of proceedings for recovery of the
dues, where the same is provided for by the terms of the
agreement entered into between the parties or where the same
is permissible by statute."
8B. This court in FAO 125/2011 and 534/2011 has also awarded interest
from the date of filing of the claim application.
In view of above discussion, appellants are entitled to interest on the
awarded amount from the date of claim application.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and it is directed that the
awarded sum will carry interest @ 6% per annum simple from the date of
application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the
date of actual payment.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
MAY 30, 2012
srb
