1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil First Appeal No.225/2008 (Smt. Swaroop Kanwar Versus Pink Pearl Water Park & Others) Date of Judgment :: 8th April, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma for the appellant Ms. Lalima Purohit for the respondents no. 1 and 2 Mr. Rishipal Agarwal for the respondent no. 3 BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the final arguments were heard in the appeal and the same is being disposed of finally. 3. The only contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that the trial court committed an illegality in not awarding the interest on the amount of compensation awarded vide impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 2008 in respect of death of Rajendra Singh due to negligence on the part of institution of respondents no. 1 and 2, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of passing of the judgment. 4. The plaintiff-appellant, mother of 2 deceased Rajendra Singh, filed a suit for compensation in the trial court, pleading therein that her son Rajendra Singh had gone to Pink Pearl Water Park for entertainment, where he died due to electric shock. The trial court has recorded a finding that Rajendra Singh died due to negligence on the part of respondents no. 1 and 2. The respondents have not challenged the said finding. The trial court awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants no. 1 and 2. The amount of compensation has not been challenged by plaintiff also. His submission is only in respect of interest on the amount of compensation. The trial court has awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of realization. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 contended that award of interest in each and every case is not necessary and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, therefore, even if the interest has not been awarded from the date of institution of the suit till the date of judgment, then the said judgment cannot be said to be illegal and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 3 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 7. Rajendra Singh son of appellant died in an accident due to negligence on the part of the respondents no. 1 and 2 is not in dispute. The deceased was 14 years of age at the time of incident and he was a non-earning member. The trial court has awarded compensation under different heads which comes to Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the cases relating to motor accident, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the interest from the date of claim application till the date of realization in number of cases. The trial court has not recorded any reason for not awarding the interest in the present case from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. I do not find any reason for not awarding the interest on the amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my view the ends of justice will meet in case the interest @ 6% per annum is awarded on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 2008 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, 4 Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 98/2004 is modified and it is directed that plaintiff-appellant will be entitled to receive the interest on the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh) at the rate of 6% per annum for the period i.e. from the date of institution of the suit till the date of payment, from the respondents no. 1 and 2, against whom the judgment has been passed for payment of compensation. 9. The cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK