IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.944 OF 2008 Date:28.09.2011 Between : Pitchaiah and others ... Appellants A N D The Union of India, rep.by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Respondent JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 22.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.89 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad for not granting interest from the date of application till the date of award on the compensation amount of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of the deceased. 2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a bona fide passenger. The quantum of compensation awarded is also not in dispute. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants is that the Tribunal has not granted interest from the date of application till the date of award. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railways opposed the same on the ground that for about 277 days, the applicants have not evinced any interest to file the appeal to grant interest and for the lapses on their part, the railways administration cannot be made liable to pay the interest. 4. No doubt, granting of interest during the pendency of the application is a discretionary power to be exercised by the Court. That discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Section 34 C.P.C. enables the Tribunal to grant interest but it must be shown that the appellants were deligently prosecuting the case when the Original Application was pending before the Tribunal. The application was filed in the year 2003 whereas the application was disposed of on 22.06.2006. It is not the case of the applicants that they were always reporting ready in the original application on each and every adjournment while it was pending before the Tribunal and that there were no lapses on their part for not disposing of the case for three years. It is also not the case of the applicants that because of the lapses on the part of the respondent/railway administration, the Original Application had been pending in the Tribunal. Immediately after disposal of the application, the applicants have not filed the appeal. There was a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal, however, the same was condoned. Therefore, for the lapses committed on the part of the applicants, they cannot derive any advantage. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 28th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.944 OF 2008 Date:28.09.2011 AMD