Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2103 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Master Varun Bagdi

2005-08-09

VINEET KOTHARI

body2005
Judgment Vineet Kothari, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.1997 of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) awarding a sum of Rs. 35,000.00 for the injury suffered by the claimant in accident. The challenge in the present appeal is limited to the extent of award of interest of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation of the same with costs. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant states at Bar that the amount of compensation of Rs. 35, 000.00 determined by the Tribunal vide impugned order, has already been paid within the stipulated period of 60 days and, therefore, he is only pressing the present appeal on issue relating to the award of interest and the costs. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further states that there is no provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 or Rules made thereunder namely, The Railway Accidents and Untoward (Incidents) (Compensation) Rules, 1990 for awarding any interest on the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal in accordance with Section 127 of the Railways Act, 1989. His contention is that unless the amount of compensation is determined by the Tribunal, no amount would have been payable to the claimants and, therefore, such claim awarded by the Tribunal cannot be interest bearing as it does not become a debt due without the determination of liability. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited before me various Judgment s in support of his submissions arising under the Railways Act. 5. In Union of India vs. Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad & Anr., 2004 ACJ 434, the Bombay High Court held that the amount of compensation becomes payable after it is determined by the Tribunal and if thereafter, the Railways fail to pay, it can be directed to pay interest from the date of decision by the Tribunal. After quoting the observations of Chief Justice M.C. Chagla in the Judgment of Iron and Hardware (India) Co. vs. Shamlal & Bros., 1954 (6) Bom 473, the Court held that it cannot be said that as soon as the accident takes place the liability to pay compensation or damages is fastened on the Railways. The liability is to be determined and decided by the Court of law and thereafter only the pecuniary liability to pay compensation is fixed on the Railways. The liability is to be determined and decided by the Court of law and thereafter only the pecuniary liability to pay compensation is fixed on the Railways. The interest in such cases cannot be awarded prior to the determination of the amount of compensation and prior to deciding whether the Railways are liable to pay the damages or compensation. At the first instance the Tribunal has to determine the question of liability and then to determine the amount of compensation. After doing so it can award interest from the date of the decision but not prior thereto. 6. To the same effect are the decision of Karnataka High Court in C. Linge Gowda vs. Union of India 1998 ACJ 701 and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Durgavathi Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India, 2005 (I) ACC 536. 7. He also relies upon the Judgment of Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mayor & Co., AIR 1966 SC 275 . In Para 5 of the said Supreme Court Judgment , it was held that if the amount claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument, the interest could be awarded under the Interest Act, 1839, but it is conceded that the amount claimed in this case is not a sum certain but compensation for unliquidated amount. Therefore no interest could be awarded prior to the date of order determining the compensation. 8. There is no contrary view on this position of law available. In the absence of any specific provision in the Act for awarding interest on the compensation determined by Tribunal, the learned Tribunal, has erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till the realisation. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned part of the order of the Tribunal to the extent of award of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realisation and cost, is quashed. Rest of the award to the extent of compensation of Rs. 35, 000.00 is neither under challenge nor is required to be disturbed. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.