Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 66 (CAL)

Sudha Rani Das v. Union of India

2014-01-29

J.K.BISWAS, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : J.K. Biswas, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata, dated 29.5.2012 determining compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Claims Tribunal, while ordering the railway administration to pay the appellant Rs. 4,00,000 compensation, ordered that the amount would carry 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment, if it was not paid within the period mentioned in the order. This made the appellant aggrieved. 2. The appellant filed the requisite application under section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 on 30.3.2007. She claimed compensation under section 124-A of the Act. Her case was that her husband got injured in an untoward incident occurring on 27.12.2006 in the course of working of a railway and ultimately died on 1.1.2007. She claimed Rs. 4,00,000 (the maximum extent prescribed). 3. The Claims Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 4,00,000. It refused interest to the appellant saying as follows: "It is well known fact that while the case is disposed of, each and every case depends upon its own merits. In this case, both sides drag the case in disposing it and, therefore, they are equally responsible for the delay in disposing the case. Hence, I do not want to allow any pendente lite interest in this case." 4. The railway administration (General Manager, Eastern Railway) accepted the order. Hence the only question is whether the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted interest to the appellant on the amount from 30.3.2007 till the date of payment? 5. The question is no longer res Integra; for a similar question was decided by the Supreme Count in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (2009) 7 SCC 372 (relied on by Mr. Mittal appearing for the appellant). In view of the decision the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted the appellant interest from 30.3.2007 when the application for compensation was filed. 6. In Tahazhathe (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Railway Claims Tribunals should not order interest only in default on payment of the determined amount of compensation, but from the date of filing of the application for compensation. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this court in Mainura Bibi Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2009 Cal 214 . 7. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this court in Mainura Bibi Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2009 Cal 214 . 7. In Tahazhathe the question of delay in disposal of the application for compensation was examined by the Supreme Court. It was found that the delay was not attributable to the claimant. In Mohamadi and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2011) ACJ 2356 and Mainura Bibi the question of delay did not arise. No law provides that if the claimant and the railway administration both are equally responsible for the delay in the disposal of the application for compensation, then the claimant should not be granted interest. 8. Hence we have no hesitation in holding that the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted the appellant interest on the determined amount of compensation from 30.3.2007 till the date of its payment. But we do not think this is a ground to remand the case to the Claims Tribunal; for the interest can be granted by us and the question is only of its rate. 9. Relying upon the Division Bench decision in Mainura Bibi and on another decision of the Supreme Court in Mohamadi and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2011) ACJ 2356, Mr. Mittal has submitted that the appellant should be granted 9 per cent per annum interest. Mr. Poddar has submitted that in Tahazhathe 6 per cent per annum interest was granted. 10. It is true that in Tahazhathe 6 per cent per annum interest was granted from the date of application till the date of the order. But in that case 9 per cent per annum interest was granted from the date of the order till the date of payment. In Mainura Bibi the court granted 8 per cent per annum interest from the date of application till the date of payment. In Mohamadi the Apex Court approved the Claims Tribunal's order granting 9 per cent per annum interest from the date of application till the date of payment. 11. In this case the Claims Tribunal found that the railway administration was equally responsible for the delay. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the appellant's equal contribution to the delay in the disposal of the case should not be a ground to refuse her interest altogether. 11. In this case the Claims Tribunal found that the railway administration was equally responsible for the delay. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the appellant's equal contribution to the delay in the disposal of the case should not be a ground to refuse her interest altogether. Keeping her contribution to delay in mind, we think it will be fair and reasonable if she is granted 7.5 per cent per annum interest. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and order as follows: The order of the Claims Tribunal is modified ordering that the railway administration shall pay the appellant 7.5 per cent per annum interest on Rs. 4,00,000 from 30.3.2007 till the date of its payment within four weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified photocopy.