1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1154/1998. The Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1153/1998. The Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Maglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 3. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1155/1998. The Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 4. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1042/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Maglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 5. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1050/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 6. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1052/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Maglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 7. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1051/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 8. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1142/1998. Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Maglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 2 9. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1143/1998. The Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 10. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1080/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Maglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 11. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1081/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 12. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1087/1998. Union of India. VERSUS Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 13. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1145/1998. The Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Maglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 14. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1211/1998. The Union of India. VERSUS M/s.Manglam Cement Ltd. & Anr. 03.03.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.P.S.Sharma ] for the appellant-U.O.I. Mr.G.S.Brijwasi ] Mr.Deepak Goyal, for the respondent-Company. ***** These appeals arise out of the award passed by the Railways Claim Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.07.1998 by which the claims filed by the respondent having been allowed and the Railways-appellant has been directed to pay the difference between the amount already paid by the Railways towards 3 compensation and the amount claimed. The Railways have thus been directed to pay the amount deducted by it. The learned Tribunal allowed the claims for the balance amount which had been deducted by the Railways-appellant towards the salvage value of the damaged product and consequently, allowed the claims in respect of the deducted value with interest in all these claims @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. During the course of hearing of these appeals the principle submission which was made before this Court was with regard to the award of interest by the learned Tribunal as no error could be pointed out so far as the merits of the findings on issues Nos.1 to 4 are concerned. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this claim application till its realization. This Court at the time of the admission of the appeal vide interim orders dated 13.01.1999 and 28.01.1999 stayed the operation of the award passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently, the recovery of the amount in pursuance of the same by the claimant was stayed during the pendency of the claims. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the present rates of interest which are prevailing the award of interest @ 4 12% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the claim petition in the year 1997 would be a very high and an exorbitant amount would be required to be paid as a period of more than 11 years has elapsed since the date of the submission of the claim petition in 1997. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the respondent claimant has been deprived of the fruits of the award for a long time and the appellants on the other hand sought the stay of the award before this Court. Hence the appellant cannot, therefore, be permitted to contend that the amount of interest should not be @ 12% per annum as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in its judgment dated 23.07.1998. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and I find that there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as award of interest @ 12% per annum in the facts and circumstances of the present case with effect from the date of the application in the year 1997 would result in virtually multiplying the amount and making it more than two times the principle amount awarded. While the idea behind awarding interest is to compensate for the delay the same has to be reasonably awarded. Even the award of interest, assuming that the rate of interest in the year 1997 was much higher than the present prevailing rates the rate of interest of 12% appears to be on the higher side. There also appears to be some 5 justification in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the present rate of interest which have been fixed by the Reserve Bank, which if taken as a guiding factor the interest rate 12% as awarded appears to be on the higher side. Since the matter has remained pending before this Court for a considerable period of time from 1998 till date and the respondent has been deprived the fruits of the award on account of the stay by this Court, I deem it just and proper to direct that on the amount awarded the appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim till the date of the award passed by the Tribunal i.e. 23.07.1998. However, so far as the rate of interest after 23.07.1998 till the date of realization is concerned looking to the fact that the present rate of interest have been slashed substantially and the period spent in the pendency of this appeal is also a substantially long period of 10 years the rate of interest to which the respondent claimant would be entitled w.e.f. 23.07.1998 would be 6% per annum till the date of realization. It is further made clear that in case the appellant fails to make the payment to the respondent-claimant on the basis of the above rate of interest within period of three months of the submission and the certified copy of this order to the appellant the respondent would be entitled to receive interest @ 9% per annum throughout. 6 Subject to the above all these appeals stand disposed of and partly allowed as indicated. There shall be no order as to costs. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.