Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2419 (RAJ)

U. O. I. v. Smt. Shamim

2006-08-04

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. appeals raise fundamental legal issues with regard to the power of Railway Tribunal (henceforth to be referred to as 'The Tribunal') to award interest to the claimant while granting compensation. These are two contrary views expressed by this court : first in the case of Smt. Jeeto Devi & ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1382/04) wherein this Court impliedly held that the Tribunal has the power to grant interest on the compensation. Second in the case of Union of India v. Master Varun Bagdi (2005(3) - DNJ (Raj.) 1294) , wherein this Court categorically held that no such power has been bestowed on the Tribunal. These issues are arising in large number of cases pending before this Court, as is obvious from the list of cases attached herewith. Hence, the necessity of addressing these legal questions. 2. In the present appeal the appellant has challenged the grant of interest by the Tribunal ostensibly on two grounds; firstly, that since no interest was prayed for by the claimant in the claim petition, interest could not be awarded to the claimant. Secondly, the Tribunal has erred in awarding the interest from the date of filing of the clam petition instead of from the date of the award. However, during the course of the arguments Mr. Alok Garg contended that unlike Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which empowers the Claims Tribunal to grant interest from the date of filing of the petition, no such provision exists in the Railways Act, 1989 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Act", for short) or in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Rules", for short). Therefore, according to the learned counsel the power to grant interest has not been bestowed upon the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an illegality by granting the said interest. In order to buttress his argument he has relied on the case of U.O.I. v. Master Varun Bagdi (2005(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1294) , wherein this Court had held that "in absence of any specific provision in the act for awarding interest on the compensation determined by the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation." 3. The second contention raised by the learned counsel during the course of argument is that even if a power for granting of interest is read into the Act, the said power does not permit the Tribunal to grant interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. In fact, since the liability to pay the compensation is not determined till the passing of the award, the interest can be imposed only from the date of passing of the award and not prior to it. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of U.O.I. v. Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad & Anr. (2004 ACJ 434 (Bom.) . He has also relied upon the case of Rathi Menon v. U.O.I. (2001 ACJ 721 (SC) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the interest to be paid @12% per annum "from 27.6.1997 (the date of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal)." 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Deepak Goyal, has argued firstly that there is no bar contained in the Act which prohibits the Tribunal from granting an interest. Therefore, it is within the discretion of the Tribunal to grant the interest or not to do so. In order to support his contention he has relied upon the judgment of U.O.I. v. A. Janardhanan & Anr. (1998 ACJ 791 (Madras) and on the case of U.O.I. v. Thanakaraj (2000 ACJ 91 (Kerala) . He also cited the case of D.B. Avalakki & Anr. v. U.O.I. (2001(1) T.A.C. 154 (Karnataka) . According to these judgments since there is no express bar on the power of the Tribunal to grant interest, the Tribunal is certainly free to grant interest on the compensation amount. 5. In order to counter the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon on the case of Smt. Jeeto Devi & Ors. v. The General Manager & Anr. (SBCMA No. 1382/04 decided on 6.7.05) , a case decided by this Court, wherein this Court has held that "the interest should be paid from the date of the filing of the claim petition before the Railway Tribunal." He has further supported his contention by referring to the case of N. Parameshwaran Pillai & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Anr. (SBCMA No. 1382/04 decided on 6.7.05) , a case decided by this Court, wherein this Court has held that "the interest should be paid from the date of the filing of the claim petition before the Railway Tribunal." He has further supported his contention by referring to the case of N. Parameshwaran Pillai & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Anr. (2002 ACJ 841 (SC) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that the interest should be paid from the date of the filing of claim petition till the actual payment. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the case of Rathi Menon (supra), the date mentioned in the operative part in para 36 that "the interest shall be paid from 27.6.97" has inadvertently been mentioned as "the date of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal." In fact, in para 7 the said date is the date of filing of the claim petition. Thus, according to the learned counsel the purport of both the cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme (Court) is that the interest is to be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, it is pertinent to point out that in both the cases of Rathi Menon (supra) and in N. Parameshwaran Pillai (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not seized of the issue whether interest could be awarded by the Tribunal and if so, from which date, i.e. from the date of filing of the claim petition, or from the date of the award. It is only in the operative part of these two cases, which give some indication that the rate of interest should be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition. Therefore, neither of these two judgment decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly shed any light on the issue as to date from which the interest is to be calculated. But, none of these three judgments-Smt. Jeeto Devi (supra), decided by this Court, and Rathi Menon (supra) and N. Parameshwaran Pillai & Anr. (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were brought to the notice of this Court during the arguments in the case of Master Varun Bagdi (supra). 6. But, none of these three judgments-Smt. Jeeto Devi (supra), decided by this Court, and Rathi Menon (supra) and N. Parameshwaran Pillai & Anr. (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were brought to the notice of this Court during the arguments in the case of Master Varun Bagdi (supra). 6. Thus, there appears to be two contradictory judgments of this Court, whereas in the case of Smt. Jeeto Devi (supra) this Court has held that the interest should be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition, in the case of Master Varun Bagdi (supra) this Court has concluded that the Tribunal could not award an interest from the date of the filing of the claim petition. In the light of these two contradictory judgments pronounced by this Court, this Court deems it proper to refer this case to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the following issues before a Larger Bench : (i) Whether the Railway Tribunal has the power to grant interest under the Railways Act, 1989 or under the Railways Accidents and Untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 or not? (ii) Whether in the absence of any explicit provision empowering the Railway Tribunal with the power to grant interest can such a power be read implicitly into the Act or the Rules or not? (iii) Whether in case of absence of any express provision empowering the Tribunal of granting interest, whether an implied bar can be read into the Act or the Rules prohibiting the Railway Tribunal granting interest or not? (iv) In case the Railway Tribunal does have the power to grant interest, should the interest be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition, or the interest should be calculated from the date of the passing of the award? Matter referred to larger bench. *******