Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 621 (PAT)

Devendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2012-04-13

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO

body2012
ORDER Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The appellant, Devendra Kumar Singh, has filed this appeal against that part of the Judgment and order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No.9800110 whereby the Board had granted interest at 9% only from the date of order till realization , if it is not paid within two months. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant during course of hearing raised only one question and submitted that the interest on the compensation amount should have been granted from the date of registration of the case. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon various decisions such as (i) A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 3098 (Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi Vs. Union of India), (ii) 2005 (1) T.A.C. 364 (Union of India Vs. Banilal), (iii) 2007 (4) T.A.C. 118 ( Union of India Vs. Oinam Keirungba Meetei) and (iv) 2007 (4) T.A.C. 519 (Union of India Vs. Brigeet Chacko). 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no doubt the court has the power to grant interest on the awarded amount but while granting interest the court has to consider cause of delay and/or at the instance of which party the delay was caused. The learned counsel submitted that in this case there was no delay caused by the respondents and, therefore, the respondents cannot be saddled with interest from the date of filing of the claim application. 5. In view of the above contentions of the parties the only point raised for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the learned court below should have granted interest from the date of registration of the claim. 6. In the decision reported in 2005 (1) TAC 364, the Delhi High Court has held that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award interest on the compensation payable under the Railways Act. It appears that in that case, interest @ 9 per cent per annum on the compensation payable to the claimant was granted. The Union of India challenged the said part of the order granting interest from the date of claim. It appears that in that case, interest @ 9 per cent per annum on the compensation payable to the claimant was granted. The Union of India challenged the said part of the order granting interest from the date of claim. In the said decision, it was held that there is no prohibition either in the Railway Act or Railway Claims Tribunal Act to the award of interest on compensation to the persons who have filed claims for compensation for injury or death caused on untowards incident and, therefore, it was held that Tribunal has the power to award interest during the pendency of proceedings before it. 7. In 2007 (2) TAC 118 (Union of India Vs. Oinam Keirungba Meetei), the Guwahati High Court at paragraph-6 has held as follows:- “Thus, we find that ‘compensation’ is the sum total of the amount which a Court finds just and proper for reimbursing the loss caused to the claimant. The compensation was payable to the claimant on the date on which the accident occurred or within a reasonable period thereafter considering the usual time taken for processing such matter. The claimant comes to the Court only when there is a failure on the part of the concerned authority to pay the compensation.” 8. In 2007 (4) TAC 518 (Union of India Vs. Brigeet Chacko), the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Paragraph-3 has held as follows:- “There is no provision under the Railways Act or Rules regarding payment of interest. Under Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, interest is payable from the date of accident as that is the date when the compensation becomes due as held in Pratap Narain Singh Dev Vs. Sreenivas Salathra, (1976) 1 S.C.C. 289 : 1976 T.A.C. 348 and Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Khajuni Devi & Ors., (2002) 10 S.C.C. 567 . In the Motor Vehicles Act also there is no specific provision regarding payment of interest on the compensation awarded. But in view of the various Apex Court decisions, it is now settled that interest is payable from the date of application as such rate at the discretion of the Tribunals. While awarding interest, tribunal can consider the bank rat also. Here the interest was ordered only from the registration of the case that too only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. While awarding interest, tribunal can consider the bank rat also. Here the interest was ordered only from the registration of the case that too only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. We are of the opinion that the Railway Tribunal used the discretion correctly. In any event, we are of the opinion that the above direction need not be interfered in an appeal and no substantial injustice is caused as interest is payable for the delay in payment of compensation. Considering the increase in money value and facts and circumstances of the case, we see no ground to interfere in the order to pay interest on the amount of compensation at 6 per cent per annum from the date of registration of the case. Hence appeal is dismissed.” 9. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court have held that the tribunal has to exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to grant of compensation and since it pertains to substantive right of the claimant, the tribunal in not passing the appropriate orders ordering interest would be deemed to have erred in not exercising the said jurisdiction. The Karnataka High Court, therefore, held that the tribunal while awarding compensation under the act, was required to order for interest under section 34 of the C.P.C. vide Avalakki & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) reported in II (2000) A.C.C. 764. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2009 (SC) Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. have held in Paragraphs- 23, 24 & 25 as follows:- “23. In the instant case, the claim for compensation accrued on 13th November, 1998, when Kunhi Moosa, the husband of the Appellant No.1, died on account of being thrown out of the moving train. The claim before the Railway Claims Tri bunal, Ernakulam. (O.A. No.68/1999) was filed immediately thereafter in 1999. There was no delay on the part of the claimants/appellants in making the claim, which was ultimately granted for the maximum amount of Rs. 4 lakhs on 26th March,2007. The claim before the Railway Claims Tri bunal, Ernakulam. (O.A. No.68/1999) was filed immediately thereafter in 1999. There was no delay on the part of the claimants/appellants in making the claim, which was ultimately granted for the maximum amount of Rs. 4 lakhs on 26th March,2007. 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 8 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. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period which the same could have been made available to the claimants. 24. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any Interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims. 25. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court dated 24.5.2007 affirming the order of the Trial Court and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the Award and, therefore, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the same.” 11. In the case at hand the death occurred on 16.4.98 and claim was filed on 20.4.98 and the delay was caused because of non-constitution of the bench. Had the bench been constituted, the appellant could have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount awarded from much earlier date. For non fault on the part of the appellants, the appellant cannot be deprived of his right to receive the interest. This instant case, in my opinion, is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred-to-above. For non fault on the part of the appellants, the appellant cannot be deprived of his right to receive the interest. This instant case, in my opinion, is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred-to-above. I therefore, find that the learned Tribunal was wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellant during pendency of the claim application. Therefore, I allow this appeal and modify the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum from the date of the Application till the date of the award and after award @ 9 % per annum till realization as directed by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.