Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1544 (GAU)

Union of India v. David Narzary

2017-12-15

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed against the judgment & order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Application No. 295/2002. 2. The aforesaid Application No. 295/2002 was registered on the basis of an application made by the respondent, who is the father of Rinku Narzary @ Basumatary, praying for compensation on the ground that Rinku Narzary succumbed to the injuries he had sustained while travelling from Bangalore to New Bongaigaon by 5625 Up Bangalore Express by ticket No. 97187881. 3. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Tribunal had passed the following order:- "Respondents are directed to pay to the applicant Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac) with 4% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the OA i.e. 11-11-02 within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the Respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing. The applicant is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand)." 4. This appeal is preferred questioning grant of interest from the date of filing of the application contending that compensation becomes payable only after the amount of compensation is determined by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, interest can be awarded only after such determination and not from the date of filing of the application. 5. The issue raised in this appeal is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 was seized of the question as formulated in Paragraph 7, which is as under:- "7. Having regard to the fact that the Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded the maximum compensation which can be awarded under the Act, the only question which, therefore, falls for decision in this appeal is whether both, the said Tribunal and the High Court were justified in not granting interest on the amount of the Award from the date of the incident or from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment of the awarded sum." 6. At Paragraphs-37 and 38, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "37. 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 eight 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. 38. 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. 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." 7. In view of the above decision, the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order dated 04.04.2006 granting interest from the date of filing of the application. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that the amount of compensation was paid on 23.8.2006. 9. In that view of the matter, the appellant will pay interest @ 6% per annum in terms of the order under challenge, from the date of filing of the application on 11.11.2002 to 23.8.2006 within a period of 3(three) months from today. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost. Registry will send back the records received from the Tribunal.