FAO No. 1016 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 1016 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.5.2011 Govardhan Parshad and another ... Appellants vs Union of India and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for Union of India. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the amount of compensation of the share of the appellants has been ordered to be deposited in a bank in FDR and non-grant of interest to them. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are aggrieved against the impugned award directing deposit of compensation of their share in the Nationalised Bank by way of FDR. He submitted that appellants are old parents of the deceased. They are in need of money to meet their daily needs. The order of deposit of their share of compensation in bank is illegal in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H. S. Ahammed Hussain vs Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563 and this Court in FAO No. 1262 of 2010—Rameshwar Lal and others vs Union of India, decided on 11.5.2010, wherein it has been opined that the amount payable to an adult cannot be directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. Second prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants should have been granted interest from the date of filing of claim petition. In support of his argument, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in N. Parameswaran Pillai vs Union of India FAO No. 1016 of 2010 -2- 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 597 and a decision of this court in Smt. Usha Rani and others vs Union of India and others 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 676. Learned counsel for Union of India could not dispute the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, he submitted that till the claim remained pending with the Tribunal, the appellants are not entitled to any interest. The respondent is not at fault for that delay. The compensation could be paid only after the assessment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation coming to the share of the appellants, who are major, shall be paid to them in cash at their option instead of keeping the same deposited in the bank. The issue regarding entitlement of interest to the claimants on the amount of compensation, has been dealt with by this court in Smt. Usha Rani's case (supra) and it has been held the claimants shall be entitled to interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is directed that the appellants in the present case shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded for the period commencing from 15.9.2005 i.e. the date of filing claim petition till the same is deposited with the Tribunal or paid to the appellants whichever is earlier. No other issue was raised. Disposed of. 23.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge