ORDER : MANEESH SHARMA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing: (i) the award dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in OA-II-20/2019, whereby the claim petition/original application filed by the respondents-claimants was allowed and an award of Rs.8,00,000/- was awarded along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the accident till the date of the award; and (ii) the order dated 02.02.2024 in review application No.2/2024, whereby the review application to the extent of review of the award in respect of interest for the period from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022, was rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.04.2018, the deceased- Shri Mahaveer Thanwal commenced his journey from Durgapura to Indore by a passenger train- Jodhpur Indore Intercity Express, and during the said journey, Sh. Mahaveer Thanwal, due to the sudden jerk of the train and resultant loss of balance, accidentally fell from the running train at Keshoraipatan Railway Station and died during treatment at MBS Hospital, Kota. Thereafter, regarding the said incident, an FIR bearing No. 28/2018, dated 19.04.2018, was also registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The present respondents, being legal representatives of the deceased Sh. Mahaveer Thanwal has filed a claim petition against the appellant, the Railway Administration. The said claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time? 2. Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to a fall from the passenger-carrying train, suffered injuries, and died as a result thereof, and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application? 4. Relief? 4. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the respondent No.1 -Manju Devi (AW1), along with Shri Raghuveer (AW2), were examined and produced as many as 15 documents marked as Ex. A-1 to A-15. 5. In rebuttal, the appellant- Railway Administration examined Sh. 4. Relief? 4. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the respondent No.1 -Manju Devi (AW1), along with Shri Raghuveer (AW2), were examined and produced as many as 15 documents marked as Ex. A-1 to A-15. 5. In rebuttal, the appellant- Railway Administration examined Sh. Rakesh Pundir- Loco Pilot Mail (RW1) and Sh. Basant Kumar Sharma- Investigating Officer (RW2). 6. After detailed consideration and examination of the pleadings of the parties and evidence so led, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Reena Devi , 2019 3 SCC 572 as well as the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Hari Narayan Gupta & Anr. , AIR 2007 Raj. 38 , decided all the issues in favour of the claimant-respondents and accordingly, the claim petition was allowed in favour of the claimant-respondents and the proforma respondent Ramdayal. Further, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal directed the appellant- Railway Administration to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimant-respondents along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 17.04.2018 till the date of order i.e. 16.11.2023. 7. Being aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. In the present appeal, the only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022. 8. Since the matter remained pending for the applicant's evidence for a long time, i.e., from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022, which is more than two years and eight months, therefore, interest for the said period ought not to have been awarded. He further submits that against the order dated 16.11.2023, he has also filed a review application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, and the review application has been rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 02.02.2024. Accordingly, prays that the award dated 16.11.2023 may be modified to the extent of interest for the period from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022. 9. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record of the case. 10. From the record, it is evident that the claim petition was filed on 10.12.2018 and the same was decided by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.2023. 9. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record of the case. 10. From the record, it is evident that the claim petition was filed on 10.12.2018 and the same was decided by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.2023. From the record, it is also evident that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants from the date of the accident, i.e., 17.04.2018, till the date of the order, i.e., 16.11.2023. The relevant period regarding which the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the liability of interest ought not to have been fastened upon the appellant from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022. 11. This Court is conscious about the fact that the significant period of the dispute i.e. 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022 was the period where the entire world was facing the heat of unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and during the said intervening period almost all the procedural aspects were restricted. 12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the difficulties faced by litigants due to restrictions on movement, took suo motu cognizance of the matter, and in an attempt to reduce the transmission of the deadly COVID-19 virus, extended the limitation period vide order dated 23.03.2020, and further extended the same vide order dated 10.01.20223 Misc. Application No.21/2022 in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in SUO MOTU WRIT, while issuing the following directions: "I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." 13. Thus, when the whole world was in the grip of a devastating pandemic of COVID-19, it cannot be said that the adjournments sought and granted during the said period were unreasonable, thus there exists a presumption that accommodations given by the learned Tribunal during the said period were reasonable and do not vitiate the direction of the learned Tribunal to pay interest from the date of the incident till the date of award. 14. Apart from that, during the COVID-19 period, initially there was a complete lockdown and thereafter, the court proceedings were re-started in consonance with various guidelines issued by PETITION (CIVIL) No(s).3/2020 the Government of India, thus, the physical presence of the parties was neither permissible nor safe; as also it was not possible for the claimants to appear physically either for the examination-in-chief or for the cross-examination at that point of time. Therefore, due to force majeure event, the court proceedings had to be adjourned under compulsion. Further, at that point of time, in all cases a general date was notified and displayed at the notice board, therefore, it was not within the reach of the claimants to seek a particular date or even a shorter date, thus, it can not be said that the claimants have intentionally delayed or adjourned the proceedings. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the liability of interest for this intervening period ought not to have been fastened upon the appellant cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the liability of interest for this intervening period ought not to have been fastened upon the appellant cannot be accepted. 15. That, still this Court, in order to examine the veracity of the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, has examined the record of the learned Tribunal and on examination of the order-sheets found that the relevant orders of the intervening period reads as under: Date Relevant order-sheet 04.11.2019 Work suspended 06.01.2020 For PE (time sought) 21.04.2020 24.03.2020 to 03.05.2020 COVID-19 work suspended 04.05.2020 COVID-19 work suspended 19.05.2020 COVID-19 work suspended 07.07.2020 COVID-19 work suspended 11.09.2020 COVID-19 work suspended 03.11.2020 Work suspended due to death of member Sh, Kamal Nayan Srimal (Member, RCT) 09.04.2021 For PE (time sought) 28.07.2021 For PE (time sought) 22.10.2021 Member, Technical on leave, Bench not formed 03.01.2022 Member, Technical on leave, Bench not formed 18.01.2022 Member, Technical on leave, Bench not formed 11.04.2022 For PE (time sought) 18.07.2022 AW1-Manju and AW2-Raghuveer were examined 24.08.2022 For DE (time sought) 11.10.2022 For DE (time sought) 15.11.2022 Bench not formed 10.01.2023 For DE (time sought) 01.02.2023 DW1-Rakesh was examined 16.03.2023 Matter adjourned 10.05.2023 For DE (time sought) 06.07.2023 For DE (time sought) 09.08.2023 For DE (time sought) 14.09.2023 For DE (time sought) 09.11.2023 Arguments 16.11.2023 Judgment 16. A bare perusal of the above order-sheets reveals that the claimant/respondents cannot be held guilty of delaying the proceedings, rather the proceedings were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic or due to other reasons which were beyond the control of the claimant/respondents. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant themselves sought time on 24.08.2022, 11.10.2022, 10.01.2023, 10.05.2023, 06.07.2023, 09.08.2023, and 14.09.2023 for leading evidence in the matter. 17. In view of the above, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of accident, i.e., 17.04.2018, till the date of order, i.e., 16.11.2023 (including from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022), therefore, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. 17. In view of the above, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of accident, i.e., 17.04.2018, till the date of order, i.e., 16.11.2023 (including from 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022), therefore, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. Rather from the record of the case, it is reflected that the Railway authorities, while filing this frivolous appeal, have not even bothered to go through the record of the case before filing the present appeal, and sought to challenge the liability of interest for the period 04.11.2019 to 18.07.2022, most of which falls within the period when the entire world was grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic as is evident from the order-sheets of the case. Therefore, this Court is constrained to dismiss the present appeal with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. 19. The appellant-Union of India are directed to deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- with the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today for filing such a frivolous appeal. 20. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 22. Let copy of this order be sent to General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP), for taking necessary action against the erring official/Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Dy. Chief Commercial Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP); who, without verifying the record of the case has filed such a frivolous appeal, so that in the future, filing of such frivolous appeals can be avoided. 23. The General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP) is further directed to send the compliance report in respect of the action so taken against the aforesaid erring official to this court, within three (3) months from today. 24. List the matter on 01.04.2026 for verifying the compliance of the aforesaid direction by the General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP).