FA/3776/1999 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3776 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 SAVITABEN RANCHODBHAI PARMAR AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR RAMNANDAN SINGH for Appellant. MR PJ MEHTA for Respondents. ====================================== 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 May 1999 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, passed in O.A. No.9900017, whereby claim petition filed by the claimant was allowed and railway authority was directed to pay Rs.4 Lacs as compensation to the claimant within 60 days from the date of the FA/3776/1999 2/3 JUDGMENT 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 17-5-1998, Shri Ranchhodbhai Parmar was returning from Anand to Nadiad. He purchased a second class ticket No.AA-65341608 and boarded train No.9017 Dn from Anand. It is also stated that when he was going for toilet, he was pushed out of the train due to heavy rush and he suffered severe injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, in view of death of Shri Ranchhodbhai Parmar, his wife and two sons have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4 Lacs. 4. The claim was resisted by Railways by filing written statement on 9-3-1999, inter alia, stating that the incident cannot be described as an “untoward incident” as per Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is also denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is also stated that the claim is highly exaggerated and, it is prayed that the claim of the claimants may be dismissed. 5. After considering the evidence on record, tribunal allowed said claim application and found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and because of his death, Rs.4 Lacs is required to be paid as compensation to the present claimants. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4 Lacs was awarded as compensation and the same was ordered to be paid within two months 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 contended that sufficient opportunity was not given to the appellant herein and since the appellant could not defend the case, this matter is required to remanded FA/3776/1999 3/3 JUDGMENT to the tribunal. 7. In my view, sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant herein but it has not availed of such opportunity and, therefore, after a period of nine years, it is not desirable to send this matter back to the tribunal for deciding it again. Therefore this contention of the appellant is rejected. 8. Second contention raised by the appellant is that the tribunal has wrongly given direction with regard to the 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. 9. 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 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 qua this point is accepted and direction of the tribunal of penal interest, if payment is not made within the stipulated time, 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