Most. Rukshana Khatoon vs Union Of India Through The General ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 466 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    M.A. No. 563 of 2015
                                              -----

1. Most. Rukshana Khatoon

2. Negma Khatoon

3. Shakila Khatoon ..... Appellants.

                                              Versus
               Union of India through the General Manager,
               Eastern Railway, Kolkata                    .... Respondent
                                              ----

        CORAM        :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                          (Through: Video Conferencing)
                                           -----
        For the Appellants:    Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha, Advocate.
        For the Railway:       Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate.
                                           ----

17/15.02.2022:       In this appeal, the claimants-appellants have challenged the part of

the award dated 21.5.2015 passed by the Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. TAU/RNC/2003/0045.

2. The claimants-appellants are aggrieved by the part of the award by which, interest has not been awarded on the amount of compensation, assessed by the tribunal.

3. The dispute is very limited in this appeal. Admittedly, the tribunal by the award dated 21.5.2015 has held that the appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation amounting to rupees four lakh. After allowing the compensation, the Tribunal did not grant any interest. .

4. Counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the Tribunal has power to grant interest. He further submits that without assigning any reason, the tribunal has disallowed the interest on the amount of compensation. He submits that while denying the interest component, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to assign valid reason. He submits that in absence of any reason, the part of the award by which, the interest has not been granted, is bad.

5. Counsel for the Railways submits that the Tribunal has allowed the claim application but without interest. He submits that it was fault on the part of the appellants-claimants as they delayed the entire proceeding thus, they are dis-entitled to receive interest on the amount of compensation.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the records of the Tribunal, I find that issue in this appeal is restricted only to the payment of interest thus I am not entering in the merits of this case in relation to accident, liability and entitlement to receive the compensation.

7. The issue of payment of interest in claim application filed before the Railways Claims Tribunal has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 nor the Railways Act, 1989 makes any provision for payment of interest on any awarded amount. Considering the aforesaid provision of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that Section 3 of the Interest Act and Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code give the power to grant interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case where statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the courts can derive power and grant interest by invoking provisions of Interest Act and Civil Procedure Code. In this context, it is necessary to quote para 21 of the aforesaid judgment:-

"21. Even though there is no provision in either of the Acts for payment of interest on the awarded sum, there is no denying the fact that the right to claim compensation accrued on the date of the incident, although compensation has been held in Rathis Menon Case is to be computed from the date of the award of the Claims Tribunal. In cases where the statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the power of the courts to grant interest can also be referred to from the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 and the Code of Civil Procedure."

8. The interest should be paid as a person, who is entitled to receive monetary benefits is deprived from the fruits of the said benefit and the money withheld by the person is utilized by him. Since the money which is withheld was utilized by a person who had withheld the same, he should pay interest on the payable amount. This interest is by way of compensation on account of denial of the right, which a person is deprived of. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has also held that the payment of interest is followed as a matter of course when the money decree is passed. It is necessary to quote paras 26 and 27 of the said judgment:-

"26. The Courts are consistent in their view that normally when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which the money was due, but could not be utilized by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of money was passed."

27. As has been frequently explained by this Court and various High Courts, interest is essentially a compensation payable on account of denial of the right to utilize the money due, which has been, in fact, utilized by the person withholding the same, Accordingly, payment of interest follows as a matter of course when a money decree is passed."

9. Thus from the aforesaid findings, it is clear that even if there is no provision for payment of interest, the claimants are entitled to receive interest from the railways.

10. Now the question is from which date the claimants are entitled to receive the interest and whether there was any fault on the part of the claimants and whether the claimants delayed the proceedings?

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has answered this issued in para 28 and 37, which needs to be quoted.

"28. 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.

37. Even if the appellants may not be entitled to claim interest from the date of the accident, we are of the view that the claim to interest on the awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of the application till the date of recovery, since the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay of approximately eight years in the making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Had the Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the appellants would have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount awarded from a much earlier date and we see no reason why they should be deprived of such benefit."

12. In this case, while I go through the Lower Court records, I find that the claim application was filed in the year 2003, thereafter the claim application was transferred to the Ranchi Bench of the Railways Claims Tribunal vide order dated 30.10.2006 from Patna Bench. The Railways filed their written statement only on 3.9.2010 whereas several adjournments earlier were granted to file the written statement. This fact clearly suggests that there was no fault on the part of the claimants-applicants and it is not because of them the claim case got lingered.

13. Further, when I go through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has allowed the claim application on contest without interest and why the interest was not awarded the same has not been discussed nor it is mentioned. In case of money decree, in terms of the judgment cited above, as a matter of course, interest should be allowed. This has been held in para 27 of the aforesaid judgment. Where a relief has to be granted as a matter of course, then

that grant is a rule and denying the same will be an exception. If the Tribunal wants to apply the exception then reason has to be assigned as to why the normal course is not being followed or is being deviated. When the tribunal denies a relief which is to be granted on normal course, it is mandatory for the tribunal to assign reasons, which is missing in this case. Thus, the part of the award by which, interest has not been granted, without assigning any reason, lacks the test of reasonableness and this cannot be accepted and is set aside. 14 Considering what has been held in this order, I hold that the claimants-appellants are entitled for interest from the date of filing of the application before the Railway Claims Tribunal till the amount was paid i.e. on 19.10.2015 @ 7% per annum. The amount of interest should be calculated and paid to the claimants within two months from today.

15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)