Smt Mallawa W/O Basanaik Naikar vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2010

INTTHEHHEH(33URTCH?KARNATAKA"CHRCUYFBENCE1AT
DHARWAD. .

DATED THIS THE 13"? DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010' f Q
BEFORE  
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.RA\,fIND  4'
Miscellaneous First Appeal NO:}'1.217i 8fI     I
BETWEEN : TV 2  A

. SMT. MALLAWWA _
W/O. BASANAIK NAIKAR
AGES? YEARS,  '
OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 
R/O. MURAKIBHAVI--59'1"12:1
TALUKA BAII.IIO_N;OAL._ _ I
DIST. BELG.A.UM;;"  . 2 '

APPELLANT

(BY SRI._NI.G{.VNAO:ANII:RI."_'& SMT. SUSHMAS. PATIL, ADV.)
AND : D V Z 2

UNION OF l"i'JI_)1A...'- _
 REERESENTE'D.._BY THE
,  _ GENERALMANAGER;

 . CENTRAL RAILWAY,
  *MUME'AI  
I W. «   RESPONDENT

(BY SR-I'. 'IvI.5A. MAOOAVI, RM. KULKARNI, ADV.)

  "'3-I.I_S MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U /S. 23(1)

 '--TI1.E_ RAILWAY. CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE
 .JU;DG.MENT AND ORDER DATED. 02/O1/2009 PASSED IN O.A.
NQ. 3.0/2003 ON THE FILE OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,



BANGALORE BENCH, ALLOWING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FOR
COMPENSATION AND FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE--.RCT
ACT AND SEEKING THE INTEREST @ 9% PER ANNUM FR"QlVI THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION ON THE CONIPEfN,SATION
AMOUNT.  __  I__ 4

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSIOlwE..<:Tl%:l_i.i'Sii" DA%,_« V'

ARAVIND KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOW-ING:--  -
JUDGMENTZRS " ' i' "

The unfortunate mother who laas lost heronly'v_;soi1IiHiin"a train'

accident having been awarded" compe'1Isatioi:__and denied pendente

lite interest by the Railway  knocking at the

doors of this Court claiming interest.  

2. Theifacts in _nu«t'SIhell._are:ias follows--

One Sri. iShekha1*__Basan*aik Naikar, who was travelling in

:_Murnbai,}f£olhapur Say'ad_hri' Express Train on his way back to his

native.pla.ce~.on ann'u_al leave after year of service spent in Military

 sepey-,~' rnet-iiyviithiia fateful accident on 07/03/2002 viz., on

 account of they train door opening by technical lapse. The Tribunal

 'iconsiciered the claim of the mother by its judgment dtd.

C21',/()iil allowed the claim petition and awarded a

Q/.



compensation of Rs.4,00,000/~ with interest thereon at 9% p.a.

from the date of order till the date of actual payment:

3. The appellant is questioning thishaward' i'rr1plied.:l'y"=

overruled the claim of claimant for grant of:_'intere'sti from 

of petition till date of award.

4. I have heard  -,Naganiiri,' learned counsel
appearing for appellant andAA.S.ri_.'l"learned counsel

appear-ingfor   

5. Sri.  contend that, under similar
circumstancespthis «case of Smt.S. Devamma @ Devi

Bai and_AnotPiérV_:Vvs.Unioii'. of India Rep. by the General

:,rg;ia.wgeir$'sau.thern Réiiwdy reported in me 2009 KAR 472 had

aw'a1jdVed_  99/0 from the date of institution of application

' 5._.x.till datcjlof actuialeiipayment and submits that similar benefit he

--._iei'_j~,.e;<'te,nC1ed to the claimant also. Per contra, Sri.R.M. Kulkarni,

woi;.ilci.pco"ntend that in the case of Smt. Leelavathamma vs. The

i.  of India,» reported in 200412] KL} 5545, this Court has

 l



negatived the claim of the claimant for grant of interest from the

date of petition till date of award.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for
the only question that arises for consideration is;

" Whether the Tribunal was .justzjied  
the claim. of the appellant in not g4ran'tin._(j the' inlterésii-st.___ 

from the date of petition till dateéof award?"

7. Appellant filed clai.i'n_petitioiiiiinllthe year"20*€i3 against
Union of India represented   South Central

Railway, Railway Nilayam,  for filing such

a claim petition inliar.ray'ngGaoi1th--Centrai Railway as respondent
was on the  of the l9lR,.registered by the jurisdictional police
against the 'Soguthltientral Railway, Railway Nilayam Secundrabad.

:'C)n iaccotinyt  realignment in the administration of Railways the

said"  accident took place claim under the

iiiiillijurisdiction of 'Central Railway's Bombay Maharastra State. This

" ii:-lealignment totolc place during the pendency of the adjudication of

 the-R  petition. Having noticed this realignment in the

adini_nistration, the appellant promptly moved an application for

R, .



impleading Central Railways Mumbai as respondent on
27/11/2007 which application came to be allowed."'--,yand

thereafterwards the proceedings continued. The

having started in the year 2003 continued till 2009     

Whisper by respondent or in the order :ofi"th'eTribu;nal" 

delay has occasioned in adjudication of  claim proceeding_s'.*--._In~_

the absence of the same, the delay,.Ic'annot to the'

claimant. Be that as it may, ;--the reai1ignrn--en'ti.in theadministration
of Railways had necessitated the_i.claim.:iant  impleading of 2nd
respondent as party, 4wiho_coI;iteisted the«.h1atter'i:before the Tribunal.

Hence, the cont;-zrition5:of';'-_the.:_leai:ned counsel for respondents in

this appeal   from the date of
petition doesixAnot'hold  i'i?iyen.i*'otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court hac1_ .Qccasion_:Vto .conis'idie"ri this issue in Rathi vs. Union of
 repioirted in   1333 ie, as to payment of interest

  claim petition and accordingly awarded the

0 7....interest'.In ease relied upon by the learned counsel for

.._iyi'_'«.re4spondent~~ vi.ie., Leelavathamma's case supra, the interest in

'i._i_i"respéct of the enhanced compensation was denied on the ground

0' if-th'at the compensation payable under the relevant rules at the time



of accident was Rs.2,00,000/~, but by virtue of a statutory

amendment it came to be enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-- and'h_ié'nce._in

respect of the enhanced compensation this--*:._   

LeelavatharI1rna's case held that claimant would not '_'e,n'ti.tled for"

interest from the date of petition till dateiéofVthe"p11es'ent

case such a situation does not arise, In'-fact tthe: lclainjiant hash

made a claim for payment of interestlfrornuthe 'date: of petition till
date of payment and also seen no fault of the
claimant that the claim has    manner and
that too after 6   award. Hence to
deprive her  awarded from the date of
petition   _theVicvanons of law, but it would
be against the substantial justice. Hence, I am

of the coneiidered' o:pin.i.on judgment in Devarnrna's case is

I-siqiiiarelyiii.,applica'b1e tolVth'e"'present case and accordingly it is held

thatthee_clai_ma.ntuis_entitled for interest from the date of petition till

V'-~<::late of'award_also_. '::Accordingly, the following order is passed

ORDER

V’ fij The appeal is allowed.

Q/i

(ii) It is held that the claimant is entitled for interest at

the rate of 9% from the date of petition ti1_1,date.._of

award and thereafter also till date of paym.-étzddtd.’ jf :_.

(iii) No costs.

hnm/