JUDGMENT:- By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the trial court on 26.2.1991 as it denies a part of the claim made by the plaintiff/appellant and also fails to grant interest on the amount of compensation directed to be paid by the respondents/ defendants to the plaintiff. 2. A suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for a decree 'for an amount of Rs.l,50,000/- with costs and future interest from the date of institution of the suit till its realization @ Rs.19% p.a.. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff suffered extensive injuries as a result of a train accident which occurred some where between Borkhedi & Butibori while the plaintiff was travelling in the Howrah-Bombay Mail on 4.8.1979. According to the plaintiff the train had started form Wardha Railway Station at 9.44 a.m. and stopped near Butibori on account of heavy rains. A goods train collided with the Bombay-Howrah Mail in which the plaintiff was travelling and the impact was so great that the three tier sleeper coach in which the plaintiff was travelling got released and was thrown in the field after taking three Topsy-turvy turns. According to the plaintiff the respondents were totally negligent in their duties and the incident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents. The plaintiff sought compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- for the loss of his right hand and fracture of a finger of his left hand. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. He also claimed an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earning capacity, and an amount of Rs.10,000/- for his inability to marry a deserving girl. The plaintiff also claimed an amount of Rs.7,500/- towards medical expenses and Rs.12,500/- towards special damages. 3. The respondents/defendants filed the written statement and denied the claim of the appellant. It was however, admitted that the accident occurred due to a collision between the Howrah Bombay Mail and the goods wagon. The defendants, denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the railway. The case of the plaintiff about the loss of his limb and the agony and suffering was denied by the defendants. It was denied that the plaintiff was a promising student and his disability was to the extent of 90%. The defendants, denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the railway. The case of the plaintiff about the loss of his limb and the agony and suffering was denied by the defendants. It was denied that the plaintiff was a promising student and his disability was to the extent of 90%. All in' all, the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest and sought for the dismissal of the suit. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues. The plaintiff entered into the witness box and stated about the manner in which the accident occurred. The plaintiff narrated about the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the accident and the disability suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated in his evidence that he was required to take treatment in the Medical College Hospital and other government hospitals. The plaintiff also examined Dr. Anandkumar Saxena who had treated the plaintiff and had diagnosed that the right hand of the plaintiff was required to be amputed. He stated in his examination in chief that the disability suffered by the plaintiff was to the extent of 80%. The Railways did not examine any witness. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court held that the plaintiff sustained injuries in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of the railway authorities. The court held that the plaintiff suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80%. The court granted the claim of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.35,000/- for the loss of his right hand, Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.60,000/- for loss of earning capacity and Rs.10.000/- for his inability to marry have a good match for marriage. The trial court did not grant any compensation for the medical expenses and further refused to grant special damages to the tune of Rs.12.500/-. The trial court also did not grant interest under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure though it was specifically claimed by the plaintiff. 5. Shri. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court committed an error in not granting an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards special damages because the plaintiff was granted damages for the pain and suffering. 5. Shri. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court committed an error in not granting an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards special damages because the plaintiff was granted damages for the pain and suffering. for loss of amenities, enjoyment of life, for loss of earning capacity and for his inability to marry a good girl. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the father and the mother of the plaintiff suffered shock and mental agony, as a result of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the plaintiff, who was a meritorious student studying in the 8th standard had to lose his right hand. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the trial court grossly erred in failing to grant interest on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- from the date of institution of the claim petition, till its realization though the plaintiff had specifically prayed for the same. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the provisions of section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court was bound to grant costs in the facts of the case and if they were to be refused, it was necessary for the trial court to have recorded the reasons, as required by the provisions of section 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in AIR 1968 Bombay 208 to canvass that the costs must follow the event. 7. None appears on behalf of the respondents - railways, though served. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record and proceedings it appears that the following points arise for determination in this first appeal: A] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special damages to the tune of Rs.12,500/- ? B] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the decretal amount of Rs.1,30,000/- ? C] Whether the trial court ought to have awarded the costs in the facts of the case? D] What order? To answer the first point for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence tendered in that regard. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff has not specifically disclosed or specified the claim of special damages over and above the medical expenses. D] What order? To answer the first point for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence tendered in that regard. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff has not specifically disclosed or specified the claim of special damages over and above the medical expenses. In the particulars of claim at item no.7 the plaintiff has claimed special damages over and above the medical expenses at Rs.12,500/-. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.35,000/- for the loss of his right hand, an amount of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10.000/ - for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Rs.60,000/- for the loss of earning capacity, an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the loss of marriage with a good girl and Rs.7,500/- towards medical and travelling expenses. There is no description whatever in the claim about the special damages. The plaintiff has also not tendered any oral or documentary evidence in regard to this claim. It appears on a reading of the judgment passed by the trial court that the trial court had granted the first five claims made by the plaintiff in the particulars of claim in totality and these claims included the claim for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, loss of earning capacity and the inability to have a good girl as life partner. In the absence of any specific claim for special damages, to the tune of Rs.12,500/-, the trial court observed that the plaintiff was not entitled to an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards special damages as the claim under this head was covered and granted under the first five heads of the particulars of claim. The finding recorded by the trial court on this issue, is just and proper. 9. Though the plaintiff was not entitled to special damages, the plaintiff was surely entitled to interest on the amount of claim decreed by the trial court. The trial court had decreed the claim to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/. It is a well settled position of law that a court in its discretion can award interest to the plaintiff under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the plaintiff fails to pray for the same. The trial court had decreed the claim to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/. It is a well settled position of law that a court in its discretion can award interest to the plaintiff under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the plaintiff fails to pray for the same. In the instant case, the plaintiff had prayed for grant of interest on the amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - @ 19% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the amount. The plaintiff was entitled to interest from the date of institution of the suit on 5.1.1981, though the suit is registered in the year 1985. It appears from the record that the plaintiff approached the trial court on 5.11.1981 along with an application to sue as an indigent person. The trial court has decided the suit on 26.2.1991. It was necessary for the trial court in the facts of the case to grant a reasonable rate of interest to the plaintiff on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-. Since the claim petition was filed, in they year 1981 and the matter was decided in the year 1991, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at least @ 10% p.a. on the decretal amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from the date of institution of the suit on 5.1.1981 till the date of realization of the amount. It appears that the respondents had filed a first appeal challenging the judgment passed by the trial court on 26.2.1991. The first appeal bearing Stamp No.27257/1991 was however rejected on 12.1.1993 for non compliance. The respondents, it seems had deposited Rs.80,000/- in this court on 24.12.1991 and the appellant was permitted to withdraw the amount on furnishing solvent security/surety. The appellant would therefore, be entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. on an amount of Rs.80,000/- from 5.1.1981 till 24.12.1991 and from 5.12.1981 on the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- till the date of realization. 10. There is no doubt that section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, empowers the court in its discretion to order payment of costs. It is well settled that the general rule is that a successful party is entitled to his costs unless there is some good cause for depriving him of the same. 10. There is no doubt that section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, empowers the court in its discretion to order payment of costs. It is well settled that the general rule is that a successful party is entitled to his costs unless there is some good cause for depriving him of the same. There is a power in a court to direct in a particular case that costs shall not follow the event, but then, in view of the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has to state the reasons in writing. In the instant case though the plaintiff's suit was decreed the court did not grant costs and also did not record any reasons though it departed from the rule that costs should follow the event. In this case the court had not exercised its discretion in ajudicious manner while refusing to grant costs to the plaintiff. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court ought to have granted costs of the suit to the plaintiff as the respondents had failed to pay any compensation to the plaintiff, who was a small boy studying in the VIIIth standard at the relevant time and had to approach the court to claim compensation though he deserved to receive the same from the respondent/railways without being required to take recourse to the proceedings in the court of law. The judgment reported in AIR 1968 Bombay Page 208 and relied on by the counsel for the appellant clearly supports the case of the plaintiff. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is hereby modified. it is held that the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. Since Rs.80,000/- was deposited by the respondents in this court on 24.12.1991, the plaintiff would be entitled to grant of interest @ 10% on the amount of Rs.80,000/- from 5.1.1981 till 24.12.1991. However, on the balance amount of Rs.50.000/- the plaintiff would be entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. from 5.1.1981 till the realization of the amount. The respondents/ railways is directed to pay the amount of interest to the plaintiff along with the costs of the suit within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The appeal is partly allowed with costs. The respondents/ railways is directed to pay the amount of interest to the plaintiff along with the costs of the suit within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The appeal is partly allowed with costs. Appeal partly allowed.