JUDGMENT
J.R. Goyal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.3.91 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Case No. OA-I-38 of 1990.
2. On account of short delivery of the consignment of 19,710 MT of steel rounds booked on 28.4.1987 from D.S.P. Durgapur to MIC Siding, Jaipur, claim petition has been filed by appellant Steel Authority of India in Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur wherein an award of Rs. 3,383 including Rs. 2,279 cost of the application, Rs. 30 as process fee and Rs. 1,074 as advocate’s fee, was passed.
3. Learned Counsel for appellant only raised the point of interest and contended that due to lapses on the part of the railway authorities, the appellant deprived of from the utilization of the money which was blocked because of the loss of consigned goods. He also contended that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable and thus by virtue of the provisions of Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code, the appellant is entitled to get the interest on the amount awarded as compensation.
4. Learned Counsel for Union of India, respondent, supported the impugned award on the point of interest and contended that Section 78(d) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (in short ‘the Act’) does not permit interest since it comes within the category of remote damages.
5. I have given my anxious consideration on the rival submissions. Learned Railway Claims Tribunal declined the interest on the pretext that interest is nothing but damage over damages which cannot be allowed in the light of Section 78(d) of the Act. To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to have a look on the provisions of Section 78(d) of the Act which reads as under:
78. Exoneration from responsibility in certain cases.Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, a railway administration shall not be responsible
(d) for any indirect or consequential damages or for loss of particular market.
6. From the perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that appellant cannot claim damages by way of loss of profits or loss of market, but in my view interest is not indirect or remote damages but such claim is only made because of the locked up capital on account of the laches of the railway authorities. This matter has been considered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India v. Laxmi Pati Sic. quoted from Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra 1970 ACJ 189 (MP), wherein the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that “the object is not to deprive the claimant of a substantive relief which he would have obtained had the matter been litigated in courts. If in the circumstances of a case a court would have allowed interest to a claimant from the date of suit or from the date of decree, Tribunal must necessarily possess that power otherwise the claimant would be deprived of a relief which he would have obtained before the constitution of the Tribunal”. Madras High Court in case of Union of India v. A. Janardhanan 1998 ACJ 791 (Madras), while taking similar view held that principles of Section 34, Civil Procedure Code are applicable and it is open to Railway Claims Tribunal to award interest as per Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code. Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of Union of India v. Steel Stock Holders Syndicate , considered this point at length and held that plaintiff cannot claim damages by way of loss of profits or loss of market plus damages sustained by the actual loss or deterioration of the goods. In such a case the plaintiff can claim only the actual loss in the value of the goods caused by destruction, damage or deterioration and not loss of profit being remote damage which is not allowed by virtue of Section 78(d) of the Act. It was further observed that where the plaintiff has merely claimed damages pure and simple and in order to assess the same had applied the yardstick of charging interest at a particular rate on the locked up capital for a considerable period. In these circumstances, claimant is entitled for the interest. Thus, ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Steel Stock Holders Syndicate’s case (supra), squarely applies under the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, interest not being the remote damages as indicated in Section 78(d) of the Act but only damages on the locked up capital for a considerable period on account of the lapses and laches on the part of the railway authorities and by virtue of the provisions of Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code, the appellant is entitled to get the interest on the original amount.
7. In view of the entire discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The appellant will get interest on the amount of Rs. 3,383 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim application till payment.