IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN REV.I.A.NO: 2 OF 2009 IN C.M.A. NO: 2 OF 2006 Between: Union of lhdia, through The General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT Petition under O.der 47 Rule 'l FVw. Section 114 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds of review, the High Court may be pleased to review the order dated 30/06/2009 passed in CMA No.2 of 2006 and allow the appeal in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and award interest over the compensation granted by the Tribunal below from the date of presentation of the application. This application coming on for hearing upon perusing the grounds for review filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri I H.R.Chowdary, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court made the following Order - This application is filed to review the order passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.2 of 2006, dated 30.06.2009, whereunder the interest was allowed only from the date of Award by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Union of lndia Vs. Konduru Venkata Reddyl. This petition has been filed saying that this Court has passed orders confining the interest from the date of Award ignoring the decision of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 2009. ln the judgment of lhe Supreme Court relied upon by tlre counsel for petitioners i.e. Sri A K.Kishore Reddy which is the foundation for review. the principle laid down is as follows:- '2ooa{sl ^r,T r72 (D.B 1. Chennamsetti Venkata Ramana, W/o.Ramalinga Murthy, aged 37 years Hindu Cultivation 2. Chennamsetti Te.ia Sai Mahesh, S/o.Ramalinga Murthy, aged 13 years, Occ: Student, Minor 3. Chennamseti Geetha, D/o.Ramalinga Murthy, aged 12 years, Occ: Student, Minor 4. Chennamsetti Trinatha Veni, W/o.late Peda Mallayaya, aged 73 years, Occ:Nil [Petitloners 2 & 3 being minors rep by their mother & natural guardian Chennamsetti Venkata Ramanal All Rr/o.Kapulapeta, Undi, Village and Mandal, West Godavarl District. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ANO ''37 Even if the appellants may not be entitled to claim interest from the date of lhe a.cident, we are of the view that the claim to interest on the awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of the application till the date of recovery, since the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay of approximalely eight years in making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Had the Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the appellants would have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount awarded from a much earlier date and we see no reason wlly they should be deprived of such benefit. 38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same cauld have been made available to the claimants. ln our view, both the Tribunal and also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims." A readinsJ of the above two paragraphs would make it clear that the normal rule for granting interest is from the date of petition and in exceptional cases, even from the date of accident. ln the presenl case, the interesl is granted from the date of Award only. There is a miscooception of law on this aspect which is one of the grounds to review the order impugned. I feel that it is a fit case to recall the order to the extent of confining the interest on the awarded anrount in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. The normal rule to award rnterest is from the date of petition and in fact, the Supreme Court awarded interest from the date of petition only in the judgment cited supra. Whereas, in the impugned judgment, interest was granted from the date of Award only. Therefore, the claimants .rre entjtled for interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit instead of from the date of Award. ln the result, the review petition is allowed and the order under review was modified by giving direction to pay the interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit ln the (;ircu nrsta nces. there shall be no order as to costs. Hence. I A.No 2 of 2OO9 is allowed //TRUE COPY// Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR -: . lt, SECTION OFFICER To n/ /t // / 1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. One CC to Sn A.K.Kishore Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 3 One CC to Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy Kj #r HIGH COURT DATED:10/06/2022 ifl ORDE:R ALLOWING 'I'HE IA. I 4) l.A.No.2 of 2009 IN CMA.No.2 of 2006 I