FA/4922/1998 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4922 of 1998 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 DUNGARBHAI TEJABHAI CHAUHAN AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MS REETA CHANDARANA for Appellant. MR GAURANG H BHATT 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 21st July 1998 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, passed in TA No.9700002, whereby claim petition filed by the claimant was partly allowed and railway authority was directed to pay Rs.2 Lacs as compensation to the claimant within two months from the FA/4922/1998 2/3 JUDGMENT date of the 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 29-6-2001, Smt. Gangaben had gone to Thangadh to Digsar by train no.218 Up and while she was alighting from the train on account of heavy rush, she fell down and simultaneously train started with a jerk and, therefore, she came under the wheels and received terminal injuries. As a result of these injuries, she died and her son has filed claim application and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4 Lacs. 4. Said claim was resisted by Railways by filing written statement , inter alia, stating that the the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and she has committed suicide by jumping down from the train. It is also stated that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the claim of the claimant 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 as during inquest panchnama ticket was found from her person by the police. Not only that in view of inquest report, Exh.24, and post-mortem note, exh.25, case of the appellant that the deceased had committed suicide is also not believed. Accordingly, it is found that on account of death of deceased Rs.2 Lacs is required to be paid as compensation to the present claimants, as the accident in question has occurred prior to amendment in Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2 Lacs was awarded as compensation and the same was ordered to be paid within two months from the date of award, failing FA/4922/1998 3/3 JUDGMENT 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 raised contention only with regard to the order of 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. 7. 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 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. 8. In view of order passed by this Court in Civil Application, the original applicant has furnished security at the time of withdrawal of amount. Since this appeal is disposed of, the original applicant is released from the security which was given pursuant to the order of this Court. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *malek