FA/324/1999 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 324 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== UNION OF INDIA Versus BABUBHAI RAMJIBHAI PARMAR ====================================== Appearance : MRS SHILPA R SHAH for Appellant,MR JC SHETH for Appellant. MR ASHFAQ AA SHAIKH for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 5th January 1999 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, passed in O.A. No.9800065, whereby claim petition filed by the claimant was allowed and railway authority was directed to pay Rs.4 FA/324/1999 2/3 JUDGMENT Lacs as compensation to the claimant within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which 12% interest will accrue in favour of the claimant. 2. The case of the original claimant is as under: 3. That on 1-10-1998, Shri Babubhai Ramjibhai Parmar, aged 25 years, was travelling with his sister from Baroda to Kathana by 103 Dn passenger train. Two tickets were bought and the applicant was travelling on general second class ticket no.71010947. After the train left Borsad, there was jerk and as the claimant was standing near the entrance of compartment, he fell down. He came under the wheels of train and both his legs were cut and also received serious injuries in the head. Thereafter, he was taken to SSG Hospital, where he got treatment and ultimately discharged. 100% disability certificate was issued by the hospital and, therefore, he claimed Rs.4 Lacs as admissible under the Act. 4. Said claim was resisted by Railways by filing written statement on 14-12-1998 at Exh.6, inter alia, stating that the incident cannot be described as an “untoward incident” as per Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is also denied that the claimant was a bona fide passenger. It is also stated that the claim is highly exaggerated and, it is prayed that the claim of the claimant may be dismissed. 5. After considering the evidence on record, tribunal partly allowed said claim application and found that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and his injury comes under Schedule of injury Part II, item 3, and, therefore, Rs.4 Lacs is required to be paid as compensation to the present claimant. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4 Lacs was awarded as compensation and the same was ordered to be paid within two months FA/324/1999 3/3 JUDGMENT from the date of award, failing which 12% interest is ordered to accrue on said amount. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant has filed present appeal. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant has raised contention only with regard to the order of payment of penal interest and submitted that the tribunal cannot award penal interest. He also submitted that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, authority or power to award such penal interest. No other contention is raised by the appellant. 7. I have considered the submissions made and also gone through the judgment of the tribunal and other relevant documents. In my view, though the tribunal has power to grant interest on the awarded amount, it has no power or jurisdiction to execute the award by putting such condition of interest clause. In my view, the tribunal cannot become executing Court and also cannot grant order of interest for non-payment of award amount. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is accepted and direction of the tribunal of interest for delayed payment is quashed and set aside. Rest of the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal will remain unchanged. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *malek