IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 38 of 2008()
1. VALSALAKUMARI.P., AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. DIVYA KRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS,
3. DEEPU KRISHNAN, AGED 19 YEARS,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA OWNED BY SOUTHERN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :09/12/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ.
————————————–
M.F.A. No. 38 of 2008
—————————————
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Husband of the first appellant died in an untoward
accident that took place on 8.7.1998 near Kottarakkara railway
station. It is contended by the appellants that the deceased while
travelling with his co-brother by Tirunelveli – Kollam train No.745
from Avaneeswaram to Quilon fell down from the train, sustained
very serious injuries and succumbed to it at Kottarakkara Taluk
Hospital on 8.7.1998. Contention of the respondent-railway was
that the deceased fell down while entraining the moving train and
that he was not a bonafide passenger. It was also the contention of
the railway that the deceased fell down due to his own rash and
negligent act and therefore, the railway is not liable to pay
compensation. After considering the evidence, it was found by the
Tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in train
No.745 Tirunelveli – Quilon passenger and he died due to an
accidental fall from the train and that the same is an untoward
accident.
M.F.A.No. 38/2008 2
2. Appellants contended that they are not at all
responsible for the delay.
3. It is true that there is no specific provision for
granting interest from the date of application, but, compensation is
paid to offset the loss suffered by the claimants due to the untoward
incident. The Railway ought to have paid the amount at the time of
accident itself and, in any event, at the time when it received the
copy of the application. The appellants are not responsible for the
delay and they have to be compensated. In this connection, we
refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Thankaraj
(2000 ACJ 651); Union of India v. Laxmi Pati (1995 ACJ 791);
Avalakki v. Union of India (2001 ACJ 1258); Union of India v. Oinam
Keirungba Meetel (2008 ACJ 783 – Gauhati); Prasant Kumar
Choudhury v. Union of India (2008 ACJ 685); Union of India and
others v. Smt.Shamim and others (AIR 2008 Rajasthan 99) and N.
Parameswaran Pillai and another v. Union of India and another
((2002) 4 SCC 306).
4. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date of
application on the facts of this case and exercised judicial discretion
to grant interest as the claimants were not responsible for the delay.
M.F.A.No. 38/2008 3
Hence, we award simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of application till the date of payment of award
amount considering the bank rate of interest prevailing at the time
of passing the award. The entire interest shall be paid to the first
appellant, widow who is also looking after the two children
(appellants 2 and 3). The award is modified accordingly.
Appeal is allowed.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
Thomas P. Joseph
Judge
vaa
M.F.A.No. 38/2008 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.
————————————-
M.F.A.No. 38/2008
————————————-
Judgment
Date:9th December,2008