* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
FAO No.361 of 2008
% Judgment reserved on:16th July, 2009
Judgment delivered on: 21st July, 2009
1. Smt. Maini Devi
W/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand
2. Baby Sunita
D/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand
Appellant No. 2 being minor
Through her mother & natural Guardian
Smt. Maini Devi
R/o Village & Post Office
Sarra Kalan, District Kalan,
District Behraich, U.P. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.K.Gupta, Adv.
Versus
Union of India
Through General Manager
Northern Railways,
Baroda House,
New Delhi ...Respondent
Through: Mr. S.R.Narayan, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 1 of 5
V.B.Gupta, J.
Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the
judgment dated 11th July, 2008 of Railway Claim
Tribunal, Delhi (for short as „Tribunal), on limited
ground, that Tribunal ought to have awarded interest
@ 12% per annum on compensation amount and that
too from date of the accident, that is, 11th June, 2006
or from date of filing of claim petition.
2. Vide impugned judgment, Tribunal awarded
compensation to appellants to the tune of Rs.
4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of order (11th July, 2008) till the date of actual
payment.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants
that Tribunal failed to consider that Section 34 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short as „Code‟) is
applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal and it
ought to have awarded interest from the date of
FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 2 of 5
accident or from the date of filing of petition. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel cited
Union of India v. M.Thankaraj and etc. etc., AIR
2000 Kerala 91.
4. It is not in dispute that Section 34 of the Code, is
applicable to the claims, made before the Tribunal.
That being so, there is no reason why appellants be
denied interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition. In M.Thankaraj (supra), it has been laid down
that;
“There is one more common question to
be considered in this case that is
regarding payment of interest. We are of
the view that the claimants are entitled to
interest from the date of filing the
petition before the Tribunal. In order to
make the compensation just and fair it is
only proper that interest is paid to the
claimant from the date of filing the
petition. A similar view was taken by a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Union of India v. Smt.
Laxmipati, AIR 1995 Madh Pra 90. It was
held that even if Section 34 of C. P. C. has
not been expressly made applicable to the
proceedings before the Commissioner
under the Indian Railways Act, 1890,
there is no reason to hold that principles
of Section 34, C. P. C. would be
inapplicable. Court, therefore, directed
payment of interest from the date of filing
the petition before the Commissioner. TheFAO No.361 of 2008 Page 3 of 5
same view was taken by the Madras High
Court in Union of India v. Janardhanan,
AIR 1998 Mad 272. In A.A. Haja
Munuddian v. Indian Railways, AIR 1993
SC 361, the Supreme Court had occasion
to consider the question whether the
provisions of the Order 33 of the C. P. C.
would be applicable to the proceedings
before the Railways Tribunal. It was held
that although the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act and the Rules thereunder do
not specifically provide for the application
of Order 33 of the C. P. C., there is
nothing in the Act or the Rules which
precludes the Tribunal from following
that procedure if the ends of Justice so
require. Nowhere in the Act is there any
provision which runs counter to or is
inconsistent with the provisions of Order
33 of the C. P. C. Same principle can be
applied to hold that even though Section
34 of C. P. C. as such is not applicable,
the principles contained therein can be
made applicable to proceedings before
the Railway Claims Tribunal.”
5. In the light of principles enunciated in the above
judgment, there is no reason as to why appellants be
denied interest, from the date of filing of the petition.
6. As far as prayer of appellants for interest @ 12%
per annum is concerned, there is no ground to grant
interest @ 12% per annum. Interest @ 9% per annum
as awarded by trial court, is quite reasonable keeping
in view Bank Rates prevailing at present. Accordingly,
FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 4 of 5
there is no ground for enhancement of rate of interest
from 9% per annum to 12% per annum.
7. So, impugned judgment is modified to the extent,
that respondent shall pay interest @ 9% per annum
from date of filing of petition, that is w.e.f. 12th
September, 2006, till date of actual payment.
8. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed
of.
9. No order as to costs.
July 21, 2009 V.B.GUPTA, J.
Bisht
FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 5 of 5