Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/4961/2007 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 4961 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
NO
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not?
NO
3
Whether
Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order
made thereunder?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
NO
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
PREMLATA
PANKAJKUMAR SHAH (WIDOW OF DECEASED)
AND
OTHERS ? Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
VASAVDATTA BHATT for
the Appellant.
MR MAHESH B SHAH / MR KUNAL M SHAH for the
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 17/03/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. On
05-02-2000, while Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah was travelling from
Palanpur to Falna by Bandra-Bikaner Express, he fell down from the
train near Maval Station and died on the spot. On account of the
death of deceased Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah, his heirs preferred
claim petition being Case No. TA0100004 before the Railway Claims
Tribunal claiming compensation from the Railways. By judgment and
order dated 14-02-2007, the Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded
interest from the date of the petition till realization. Being
aggrieved by the interest part of the order, the appellant ?
Railways is in appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987.
2. It
is contended by the learned Advocate Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt on behalf
of the appellant ? Railways that the Tribunal has in some cases
awarded interest from the date of the petition till realization and
in some cases, it has also awarded interest from the date of the
award till realization. This lacunae is glaring and, therefore, it
is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that interest
be awarded from the date of the award and not from the date of the
petition. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment
rendered in First Appeal No. 24 of 2002 in support of her submissions
at the Bar.
It
is also submitted that while computing the period for awarding the
interest, the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the
period for which the Tribunal did not function and, therefore, the
Tribunal was not justified in awarding interest for the said period.
With
regard to the award of compensation made in favour of the claimants,
the learned Advocate has not disputed the same.
3. Learned
Advocate Mr. Mahesh B. Shah representing the claimants ?
respondents vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has passed just
and proper award in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs. 4
Lakhs and the interest at the rate of 6% is awarded from the date of
the petition till the realization and it does not call for any
interference in appeal preferred by the appellant. The learned
Advocate submitted that even the interest awarded at the rate of 6%
is not excessive and, therefore, the same cannot be reversed in an
appeal preferred by the appellant. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, the learned Advocate submitted that
the appeal requires to be dismissed.
4. Heard
learned Advocate Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt for the appellant and learned
Advocate Mr. Mahesh B. Shah for the respondents at length and in
great detail. I have also perused the judgment and award dated
14-02-2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench,
Ahmedabad.
5. The
distraught heirs of deceased Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah had preferred
petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the
accidental death of deceased Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah. The death in
question took place on 05-02-2000 when said Pankajkumar Rupchand
Shah, who was travelling in a train from Palanpur to Falna, fell down
from the train near Maval Station and died on the spot. The
accident, as per the discussion by the Claims Tribunal, was rightly
proved by the claimants on the basis of documentary evidence as well
as oral deposition. Considering the fact that accident took place,
the Tribunal has awarded compensation as contemplated in Part I of
the Schedule in view of Rule 3 of the Railway Accident And Untoward
Accidents Compensation Rules, 1990 to the extent of Rs. 4 Lakhs.
Considering the entire gamut of oral deposition and the documentary
evidence, no interference is called for in the present appeal.
The
contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that
interest should be awarded from the date of the award till the
realization and not from the date of the petition till the
realization is stated to be rejected. Even the judgment rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 24 of 2002, on
which reliance is placed by the learned Advocate, also does not help
the learned Counsel in any manner whatsoever because the Division
Bench has taken a view that the interest is to be awarded from from
the date of the petition till the realization. Therefore, the
contention raised by the learned Counsel requires to be rejected.
The
second contention raised by the learned Advocate is that the Railway
Claims Tribunal does not sit for the whole year on regular basis and,
therefore, the interregnum period, during which the Railway Claims
Tribunal is not functioning, cannot be taken into consideration for
calculating and awarding interest to the claimants. This submission
also has no force as the claimants should not suffer on account of
non-functioning of the Railway Claims Tribunal for a particular
period.
In
view of the foregoing discussion, no interference is required to be
called for in the appeal preferred by the appellant. Hence, the same
is liable to fail.
6. In
view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
[H.
B. ANTANI, J.]
/shamnath
Top