JUDGMENT Mr. Amitav K. Gupta, J. – I.A. no. 4326 of 2015 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 267 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. It is submitted by the counsel that after passing of the impugned order dated 23.06.2014, the petitioner had preferred review petition, vide Case no. REV/RNC/2014/0006 (Annexure-1), for grant of interest on the award and notice was served upon the respondent, where after, the petition for review was rejected on 02.04.2015, in a mechanical manner without assigning any reasons. It is submitted that the certified copy of the impugned order, passed in review case on 13.04.2015, were obtained and the same was sent to the legal section for opinion and after getting the sanction order, the present appeal was filed. It is urged that due to the above reasons, the delay has occurred and is not deliberate or intentional. It is urged that the appellant has a good case and if the delay is not condoned, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-railway has opposed. 4. Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly, the delay is condoned and I.A. no. 4326 of 2015 stands allowed. M.A. No. 268 of 2015 5. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned award of Rs.1,35,547/- was passed by Tribunal in Case no. TAC/RNC/2006/0002 vide order dated 23.06.2014 without interest. 6. The claimant/appellant, Associated Cement Company Limited, had entrusted one full rake cement consignment to the respondents/railways vide RR. No. C-368232 dated 29.07.2004, but on delivery, it was found that wagon bearing no. SR-47449A containing 1174 bags of cement was not delivered on that date for which the respondent/railway had granted a shortage certificate with respect to the missing wagon. Thereafter, on 10.12.2004, the appellant served notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 upon the respondents/railways claiming compensation of Rs.1,96,058/-. That after the claim was agitated, then, after lapse of six months, the missing wagon arrived at the destination i.e., Koderma, in a damaged condition, whereupon the appellant demanded open and assessment delivery of the goods after chemical test by any recognised laboratory. That the respondents/railways did not take any steps in the matter despite repeated requests by the appellant to settle the claim. That the respondents/railways did not take any steps in the matter despite repeated requests by the appellant to settle the claim. That the appellant was forced to file claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench on 31.03.2006, which was subsequently transferred to learned Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, and compensation of Rs.1,35,547/- was granted by the impugned order, but, no interest whatsoever, has been given on the said amount, hence, this appeal has been preferred. It is argued by the counsel that there was no wilful laches or delay on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the claim rather the respondents/railways for reasons best known to them, had filed the written statement after nearly 6 years. That the claims Tribunal should have appreciated and taken cognizance of the fact that the delay in conclusion of the proceeding had been occasioned due to the laches on the part of the respondents/railways and should have awarded interest on the claimed amount as the running capital of the petitioner/appellant was kept locked for nearly 8 years due to the non-cooperative attitude and casual approach of the respondents/railways. That the loss in value of the goods is the loss of market value of the goods on the date of the shortage of the delivery and the Tribunal should have appreciated that loss was caused due to the fault of the respondents/railways, who are liable to compensate the loss by paying the interest on the awarded compensation. 7. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd., and others reported in AIR 1987, Karnataka, 161 wherein, the interest @ 12% per annum was awarded, from the date of claim, for loss on account of the capital being locked up as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 879 and AIR 1966 SC 395 . 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/railway has supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned award and the suit had lingered due to fault of the appellant/claimant, hence, he is not entitled for interest and Section 13(a)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act also does not provide for interest on the award. 9. Heard. 9. Heard. It is not disputed that the shortage of delivery was admitted by the respondent/railways for which they had issued a certificate to that effect. The goods were delivered after nearly 6 months allegedly in a damaged condition. The appellant had also asked the respondent/railway to get the quality verified and assessed by recognised laboratory and prayed for settlement of the claim, but, the railways had asked the appellant to submit the quality test report for settlement of the claim under Section 106 of the Railway Act, 1989. The appellant submitted the report of the laboratory on 26.07.2005, but, the respondent/railways did not settle the same. Admittedly, the claim application was filed on 31.03.2006, but, there is no explanation as to why the respondents/railways filed their written statement after lapse of nearly six years. The capital of the appellant was blocked for nearly 8 years. In the circumstances the Tribunal should have appreciated that the respondents/railways are liable to compensate the loss in terms of Section 76 of the Act by settling the claim at the earliest. Since, the respondents/railways were at fault, the Tribunal should have quantified the loss by payment of interest on the award under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel and the settled principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 879 ,(Supra), the respondents/railways is directed to pay interest @ 12 % per annum on the awarded compensation from the date of filing of the application, till the realization within 90 days from the date of this order. 11. With the said modification in the impugned judgment/award, this appeal is hereby allowed.