IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.893 OF 2008 Date:30.08.2011 Between : T.Chandra Shekar Reddy ... Appellant/Applicant A N D The Union of India, rep.by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 21.02.2006, in O.A.A.No.111 of 2002, 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.2.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by the applicant in an untoward incident on 07.03.2002. 2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The injuries sustained by the applicant are also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the injured was travelling in a passenger train as a bona fide passenger. The quantum Award of Rs.2,50,000/- is also not in dispute. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant 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 four years, the applicant has not evinced any interest to get ready with the matter and for the lapses on his part, he is not entitled for the interest. 4. No doubt, granting of interest during the pendency of the application is a discretionary remedy to be exercised by the Court. That discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The application was filed on 24.04.2002 whereas the application was disposed of on 21.02.2006. It is not the case of the applicant that he was always ready in the original application while it was pending before the Tribunal and that there are no lapses on his part for the delay in not disposing of the case for four years. It is also not the case of the applicant that because of the lapses on the part of the respondent/railway administration, the Original Application was pending for about four years in the trial Court. Immediately, after disposal of the application, the applicant has not filed the appeal. There was a delay of 314 days in filing the appeal and the same was condoned. Therefore, for the lapses committed on the part of the applicant, he 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 AUGUST 30, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.893 of 2008. Date:30.08.2011 AMD