IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 54 of 2001 alongwith Cross Objections No. 221 of 2001 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Sh. Dhani Ram and others Appellants. Versus H.P.S.E. B. and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The plaintiffs/appellants filed the present appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.9.1999 passed by the District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 9-S/1 of 1997, titled as Shri Dhani Ram and others versus H.P.S.E.B. and another. Being aggrieved of the same even the defendants/respondents herein have filed cross objections No. 221 of 2001. The plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs as compensation on account of death of their predecessor in interest Sh. Ganga Ram, who died due to electrocution on 6.6.1989. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Considering the material on record the Court below came to the conclusion that the death took place due to shock caused by live electric wires of the defendants who had been negligent in maintaining the electric transmission wires which had fallen on the backside of the house of the plaintiffs in village Beh Mandi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. On the question of payment of compensation, the plaintiffs were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as damages on account of death of deceased Sh. Ganga Ram who was 48 years of age. Interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- already paid by the defendants was to be deducted from the same. After the matter was heard for some time and record perused Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants confined the challenge in the appeal only to the payment of interest on the decreetal amount. In view of the same Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly and graciously did not press his objection petition. The scope of the present appeal thus being narrow the question of payment of interest to the plaintiffs is being considered. Admittedly in the impugned judgment and decree the Court has not awarded any amount of interest. Payment of interest pendente lite and future is a matter of discretion of Court. [Mahabir Prasad Rungta versus Durga Datta, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 990 (V 48 C 159)] 3 In the present case the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had died due to electrocution. The compensation awarded is just, fair and reasonable. In fact the defendants themselves had awarded interim compensation. At the time of the death of the deceased Sh. Ganga Ram, the plaintiffs were young and in fact two of them were minor. Their sole bread earner had died leaving them to fend for themselves alone. As such I hold that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to interest pendent elite and future up to the date of realization of the decreetal amount. The rates of interest between 1989 and 2009 have been fluctuating. However in my considered view interest at the rate of 9%, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. versus G. Harischandra Reddy and another, (2007) 2 SCC 720 would be just, fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs are thus held entitled to interest @ 9% pendent elite and future up to the date of realization of the decreetal amount. The impugned judgment and decree is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal and the cross objections are decided accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 17, 2009 (PK)