FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 1 of 5 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.361 of 2008 % Judgment reserved on:16th July, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 21st July, 2009 1. Smt. Maini Devi W/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand 2. Baby Sunita D/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand Appellant No. 2 being minor Through her mother & natural Guardian Smt. Maini Devi R/o Village & Post Office Sarra Kalan, District Kalan, District Behraich, U.P. ….Appellants Through: Mr. N.K.Gupta, Adv. Versus Union of India Through General Manager Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi …Respondent Through: Mr. S.R.Narayan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 2 of 5 V.B.Gupta, J. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 11th July, 2008 of Railway Claim Tribunal, Delhi (for short as „Tribunal), on limited ground, that Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 12% per annum on compensation amount and that too from date of the accident, that is, 11th June, 2006 or from date of filing of claim petition. 2. Vide impugned judgment, Tribunal awarded compensation to appellants to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order (11th July, 2008) till the date of actual payment. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that Tribunal failed to consider that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as „Code‟) is applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal and it ought to have awarded interest from the date of FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 3 of 5 accident or from the date of filing of petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel cited Union of India v. M.Thankaraj and etc. etc., AIR 2000 Kerala 91. 4. It is not in dispute that Section 34 of the Code, is applicable to the claims, made before the Tribunal. That being so, there is no reason why appellants be denied interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. In M.Thankaraj (supra), it has been laid down that; “There is one more common question to be considered in this case that is regarding payment of interest. We are of the view that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of filing the petition before the Tribunal. In order to make the compensation just and fair it is only proper that interest is paid to the claimant from the date of filing the petition. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Smt. Laxmipati, AIR 1995 Madh Pra 90. It was held that even if Section 34 of C. P. C. has not been expressly made applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, there is no reason to hold that principles of Section 34, C. P. C. would be inapplicable. Court, therefore, directed payment of interest from the date of filing the petition before the Commissioner. The FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 4 of 5 same view was taken by the Madras High Court in Union of India v. Janardhanan, AIR 1998 Mad 272. In A.A. Haja Munuddian v. Indian Railways, AIR 1993 SC 361, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question whether the provisions of the Order 33 of the C. P. C. would be applicable to the proceedings before the Railways Tribunal. It was held that although the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the Rules thereunder do not specifically provide for the application of Order 33 of the C. P. C., there is nothing in the Act or the Rules which precludes the Tribunal from following that procedure if the ends of Justice so require. Nowhere in the Act is there any provision which runs counter to or is inconsistent with the provisions of Order 33 of the C. P. C. Same principle can be applied to hold that even though Section 34 of C. P. C. as such is not applicable, the principles contained therein can be made applicable to proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal.” 5. In the light of principles enunciated in the above judgment, there is no reason as to why appellants be denied interest, from the date of filing of the petition. 6. As far as prayer of appellants for interest @ 12% per annum is concerned, there is no ground to grant interest @ 12% per annum. Interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by trial court, is quite reasonable keeping in view Bank Rates prevailing at present. Accordingly, FAO No.361 of 2008 Page 5 of 5 there is no ground for enhancement of rate of interest from 9% per annum to 12% per annum. 7. So, impugned judgment is modified to the extent, that respondent shall pay interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of petition, that is w.e.f. 12th September, 2006, till date of actual payment. 8. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. July 21, 2009 V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht