JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal Under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by Employees' State Insurance Corporation, against the order dated 3.11.1981 passed by the Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court, Jaipur, awarding interest to the claimant Under Section 34 Civil Procedure Code. 2. Shri S.P. Mathur, an employee of Man Prakash Talkies died in a railway accident on 23.11.1977. His wife Sushila Mathur, on her behalf as well as on behalf of her minor son Ajay and daughter Seema, filed an application Under Section 75 of the Act, for obtaining dependant's benefit on account of death of her husband S.P. Mathur and damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of with holding payment of dependent's benefit and not paying the same but raising unnecessary quarries like as to whether she had received any benefit from the railway. The application was contested by the appellant justifying that they were entitled to find out as to whether the claimant had received any benefits from the railways and the appellant had not withdrawn the amount rather the applicant here self delayed the submission of information and also did not submit the claim on the prescribed form, despite several reminders. 3. The learned court below framed the following issues: "1. Whether the opposite party Corporation delayed the decision of the applicant's claim as such it is liable to pay the damages? If so to what extent? 2. Whether the petition for claiming of damages for delayed decision of the claim is maintainable under the provisions of ESI Act in this Court?" 4. The parties did not lead any evidence. After hearing arguments, the learned court below, keeping in mind Section 53 and 61 of the Act, held that the Corporation was bound to pay the dependent's benefits while other sources were entitled to refuse benefits. The court also held that the Corporation unnecessarily wasted time in the correspondence and making quarries. But the trial court found that the Corporation was not liable to pay any damages on account of delay in making payment of dependent's benefits, but relying on the principles of Section 34 Civil Procedure Code, it awarded an amount of Rs. 1400/- being interest from 25.4.1978 to the date of payment to the applicant. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 5. 1400/- being interest from 25.4.1978 to the date of payment to the applicant. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation has very vehemently drawn my attention to Sugan Chand v. Bal Chand 1957 R.L.W. 31 and Union of India v. Shujas Ram and Ors. (A\R 1963 Rajasthan 1) and has submitted that the learned court below has seriously erred in awarding interest to the claimants. He has further submitted that there was neither any claim of interest nor any issue was framed by the court nor there was any evidence led by the parties, on the point of interest, and therefore, none of the circumstances were present wherein the court could have awarded interest. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that this Court should not entertain this appeal which is for a very nominal amount and has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Tire Commissioner of Wealth Tax. v. Shri Girdhari Lal Saraf D.B. Wealth Tax Reference Appl. No. 14/1989 decided on 27.11.1990. He has further submitted that the learned court below has come to the conclusion that there was delay in making payment and therefore under the general principles the claimants were entitled to interest as well. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also perused the record as well as the authorities cited at the bar. 8. The learned court below has itself held that the claimants are not entitled to damages on account of delay in marking payment of the dependent's benefits, though it had come to the conclusion that the Corporation was responsible for the delay in payment of dependent's benefits. Shri S.P. Mathur died on 23.9.1977 and the claimants put up their claim before the lower Court sometime before March, 1978 but the same was not in prescribed form. The claim in the prescribed form No. 18 was submitted on 28.6.1980 and the dependant's benefits were awarded on 24.9.1980 within three months of the filing of the application. Rule 52(1)(f) provides that the benefit should be paid not later than three months after the claim complete in all particulars had been filed in the prescribed form. The claim in the prescribed form No. 18 was submitted on 28.6.1980 and the dependant's benefits were awarded on 24.9.1980 within three months of the filing of the application. Rule 52(1)(f) provides that the benefit should be paid not later than three months after the claim complete in all particulars had been filed in the prescribed form. Under the Act, the ESI Court has no power to award interest Section 34 CPC is also not applicable as it empowers the Court to award interest when the decree is for payment of money, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any period prior to the institution of the suit and from the date of the decree to the date of payment. Under the general principle also, the court can award interest if any of the following conditions are present: (1) if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate. (2) if it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or (3) if there is any provision of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest. 9. Since none of these conditions is present, in the instant case the ESI Court had no jurisdiction or authority to award interest to the claimants. The authority relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents is of no avail as the observations made in that case are in a different content. 10. As far as power of the trial court to grant interest is concerned, reference may be made to Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji and Ors. AIR 1938 PC 67 wherein it has been held that interest for the period prior to the date of the suit may be awarded, if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate or it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law or under the provisions of any substantive law, entitling the plaintiff to recover interest, but in the instant case, none of these conditions is fulfilled and hence, the trial court had no authority to grant interest simply by referring to Section 34 Civil Procedure Code. 11. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 3.11.1981 passed by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Jaipur, in Case No. ESI/76/1980 is set aside. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******