JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta. J. - This appeal has been preferred against the order and award dated 19.11.2015 passed in Case no.TAU/RNC/2004/0022 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi whereby Rs.4,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 to appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any interest on the awarded compensation and directed the respondent to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment if the compensation amount is not paid within 90 days from the date of the award. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the settled principle and the proposition of law that the interest should be awarded from the date of filing of the claim application if there is no fault or laches on the part of the claimants/applicants. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be modified and direction may be issued upon the respondent to pay interest from the date of filing of the claim application till the payment of award. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/railways has submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that the record of the case was misplaced and thereafter it was reconstructed and accordingly, delay had occurred. That the claim application was filed in the year 2004 and judgment has been delivered in the year 2015. That the delay in passing of the judgment was not due to any fault or laches on the part of the respondent rather delay has occurred because the record was misplaced by the office of the Claims Tribunal and it was reconstructed thereafter. It is further submitted that the claimant should have specifically pleaded as provided under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C, for grant of interest, but such plea is lacking in the claim application, therefore, the appellants cannot raise the plea at this stage. 4. Heard. It is settled proposition that the compensation is to be paid in case of death on account of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Railways Act. On the point of interest the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. 4. Heard. It is settled proposition that the compensation is to be paid in case of death on account of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Railways Act. On the point of interest the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in,2018 SCCOnline(SC) 507, has observed that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises up to the date of payment and the legal position in this regard is at par with the accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. The contention raised by the respondent/railways that the appellants are required to plead specifically about the interest in claim application is not tenable in law because it has been observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tejinder Singh Gujral Vs. Inderjit Singh & Anr , (2007) 1 SCC 508 , that the question of grant of interest on such compensation was discretionary and it was not required to be claimed, separately and the interest is to be reasonable depending upon the facts of the case. The said case had arisen out of a motor accident and the interest awarded @ 9% per annum was not disputed by the Apex Court. 6. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors.Versus Union of India & Anr , (2009) 7 SCC 372 , has held that when there is no specific provision for grant of interest on any amount due, the Court and even Tribunals are entitled to award interest in their discretion, under the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act and Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. The settled proposition is that interest should be paid on compensation amount if it is not paid at the time of accident. In the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & Ors. 7. The settled proposition is that interest should be paid on compensation amount if it is not paid at the time of accident. In the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & Ors. , (2012) AIR SC 3144, the Apex Court, has referred to the judgment of a four judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata , (1976) 1 SCC 289 , wherein it was held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose in course of employment and the relevant date for determination of the amount of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. In the aforesaid case the order of grant of interest on the awarded amount from the date of the accident was affirmed. 8. In plethora of decisions it has been observed by the Apex Court that when the statute has not fixed any rate of interest to be awarded on the awarded compensation amount, than the Court has to consider all the relevant factors while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation. The factors may include inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending for determination of compensation, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of the suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. The Legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to confer such discretion only on the Tribunal or the Court with the object that the Tribunal or the Court while awarding the rate of interest will take into account the facts and circumstances of each case and other relevant guiding factors prevalent at the time of awarding compensation. Under section 34 CPC discretion has been given to the Court at what rate the interest should be paid on the sum for the different stages except in the case of future interest to be awarded from the date of the decree to the date of payment. 9. The Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. 10. 9. The Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. 10. On perusal of impugned order, it is evident that the appellant cannot be defaulted for the delay and the time taken for adjudication of the claim as there is no finding by the Tribunal that delay has occurred due to laches or lackadaisical attitude of the appellant. In such circumstances, if the matter had not been delayed then the appellant would have been entitled to the benefits of the amount awarded from a much earlier date. The payment of interest is by way of compensation for being denied the payment of the amount at the time it was due. The delay in payment of the compensation has resulted in diminishing of the intrinsic value of money due to price escalation, inflation etc., In the attending circumstances, the respondent/Railways are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation less the amount already paid, from the date of filing of the claim application, till payment of the compensation. The interest on the amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 11. Thus, in the backdrop of the discussions made herein above, the