Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Rashmi Shrivastav & Others vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 15 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 419 of 2015
........
Smt. Rashmi Shrivastav & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager,
East Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar) .... ..... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate.
........
08/15.02.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Kumar
Singh and learned counsel for the respondent / railway, Mr. Mahesh
Tewari.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claim
application of the applicants namely, Smt. Rashmi Shrivastav,
Twinkle and Minor Chinmay, represented through his mother
applicant no. 1 Smt. Rashmi Shrivastav has been allowed vide award
dated 12.12.2014 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC /2013 /
0002, whereby compensation has been allowed to the tune of Rs.
4,00,000/-, but without any interest, though the learned Tribunal has
wrongly considered in para-12 of the impugned judgment that it is
seen that the alleged incident took place on 15.06.2012 and the
application was filed on 12.11.2012 and thus there was no delay on
the part of the claimant to prefer her claim. It has taken about 2 years
in making of the award and a substantial part of the delay can be
attributed to the applicant, as such the learned Tribunal has not
granted interest which should have been awarded @ 7.5% from the
date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual
indemnifying the award.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that vide
order dated 23.09.2020, this Court has called for the the Lower Court
Records along with the order sheet from the date of filing of the
claim application till the date of judgment passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, which has already been received.
It appears that on 12.11.2012, the claim application was filed.
On 29.01.2013, the order for summon has been issued. On
01.03.2013, respondent's counsel nominates counsel, who undertakes
to file Vakalatnama by 30.04.2013. On 30.04.2013, written statement
has been filed and issue has been framed and case was adjourned for
05.07.2013 for applicant's evidence. On 05.07.2013, the applicant
prayed for time, respondent's counsel was present and the case was
fixed for 14.08.2013. On 14.08.2013, the applicant's counsel is
absent. The date fixed on 18.09.2013. On 18.09.2013, there was no
Bench in the Tribunal, the case was fixed on 11.11.2013. On
11.11.2013, there was no Bench, the case was fixed on 09.01.2014.
On 09.01.2014, the counsel for the applicant was absent, the date
fixed on 05.03.2014. On 05.03.2014, both the counsels were present.
Rashmi Srivastav was examined as A.W.-1. Learned counsel for the
respondent cross-examined her and on the prayer of the applicant for
further evidence, the date was fixed on 28.04.2014. On 28.04.2014,
both the counsels were present. Amit Kumar was examined as A.W.-
2. He was cross-examined and discharged. The applicant prayed for
further time to adduce evidence. The date was fixed on 04.07.2014.
On 04.07.2014, respondent's counsel was present. Sri. S. Akhtar
appears on behalf of A.K. Singh. Applicant submitted various
documents (9 pages) and respondent received copy of the same. The
evidence of the applicant was closed and on 04.08.2014, the matter
was fixed for respondent's evidence. On 04.08.2014, applicant's
counsel was absent. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed
for time for respondent's evidence on 27.08.2014. On 27.08.2014,
both the counsel's were present. The applicant prayed that the
respondent may file the DRM's report. Time granted till 16.09.2014.
On 16.09.2014, both the counsels were present. Respondent
submitted that that the evidence may be closed and fixed for
argument on 21.11.2014. On 21.11.2014, the matter was heard and
judgment was reserved, which was delivered on 12.12.2014.
It appears from the order sheet that though the untoward
incident took place on 15.06.2012. The claim application was filed
on 12.11.2012. On 30.04.2013 and 14.08.2013, applicant's counsel
was absent, but on 18.09.2013 and 11.11.2013, there was no Bench
and on 09.01.2014, counsel for the applicant was against absent. On
04.08.2014, counsel for the applicant was also absent. Even though,
it does not appear to this Court that such delay has been caused by
the applicant which compel the learned Tribunal to mention that it
had taken two years in making the award and substantial part of the
delay can be attributed to the applicant.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that only four adjournments have been
taken by the learned counsel for the appellants in two years, as such,
the appellants are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim application till the date of indemnifying
the award.
Learned counsel for the respondent/Railway, Mr. Mahesh
Tewari, has prayed for some time to verify the record of the case.
List this case on 22.02.2021.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
