FAO No. 110 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO No. 110 of 2009 Date of decision: 17 .07.2009 1) Des Raj …..Appellant Versus Union of India ….Respondents FAO No. 106 of 2009 2) Sumera and others …..Appellants Versus Union of India ….Respondent FAO No. 5183 of 2008 3) Sumitra Devi and others …..Appellants Versus Union of India ……Respondent FAO No. 4856 of 2008 4) Sarita …..Appellant Versus Union of India ……Respondent FAO No. 4959 of 2008 1 FAO No. 110 of 2009 (O&M) 5) Mahipal Yadav and others …..Appellants Versus Union of India ……Respondent FAO No. 4536 of 2008 6) Ramjeet Prashad …..Appellants Versus Union of India ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. B S Mittal, Advocate For the appellant (FAO Nos. 110 and 106 of 2009) Mr. Paul S Saini, Advocate For the appellants (FAO No. 5183 of 2008) Mr. J S Virk, Advocate For the appellant (FAO Nos. 4856, 4959 and 4536 of 2008) Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate For the respondent (in all the appeals) -.- Nirmaljit Kaur, J . All the aforementioned appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as prayer in these appeals is for modification of the impugned award, whereby, the Tribunal, while deciding the award, granted the compensation, but without any interest. However, for facility of reference, facts are being taken from FAO No.110 of 2009. The prayer, in this appeal, is for modification of the Award 23.05.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 2 FAO No. 110 of 2009 (O&M) Chandigarh, whereby the Tribunal, while deciding the Award, awarded Rs.4 lacs in favour of the appellant, but without any interest. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the claim to the extent of paying interest on the Awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. However, he expressed his strong reservation on the rate of interest, which should be levied. He placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of ‘Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. V. Smt. Vimla Devi and Ors., 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 468, ‘Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and others, Vol.CXL-(2005-2) The Punjab Law Reporter-650 and ‘The Managing Director, TNSTC v. Sripria and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 422, wherein the rate of interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum instead of 9%. Reliance has also been placed on two more judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of ‘Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Suguna and others, (2009)4 Supreme Court Cases 255 and ‘Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Shanti Devi and others, (2009)4 SCC 355, wherein the interest has been granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, has relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of ‘Kailash Nath and another v. Union of India’ (FAO No. 3261 of 2008, decided on 15.01.2009), Balwinder Kaur and others v. Union of India (F.A.O. No. 2139 of 2008, decided on 01.12.2008 )and ‘Smt. Saroj Devi v. Union of India’ (F.A.O. No. 4027 of 2008, decided on 30.03.2009) to show that the interest on the awarded amount was granted at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of ‘N. Parameswaran Pillai and another v. 3 FAO No. 110 of 2009 (O&M) Union of India and another, 2002 ACJ 841, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the Railway Administration to pay to the appellants a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the rate of interest, which was reduced by the High Court from 15% to 12% per annum, was upheld. In another judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Rathi Menon v. Union of India’, 2001 ACJ 721, directing the Railway Administration to pay compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. While distinguishing the judgments placed on record by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they pertain to the cases filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are, therefore, not applicable in the cases filed under the Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Although, the Apex Court in a case of claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ‘Savita Sharma and others v. Union of India/Chandigarh Administration and another, 2008 ACJ 2032, the interest was allowed at the rate of 12% per annum, even though the multiplier was increased from 8 to 11. In this appeal, the appellant met with an accident on 17.01.2004, and as a result thereof, his both legs were badly crushed and amputated, and as such, the appellant suffered 100% permanent disability. There being no dispute to the proposition of law that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the awarded amount from the date of accident till its realization, the impugned award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to the payment of interest on the amount so awarded from the date of the accident till its realization. 4 FAO No. 110 of 2009 (O&M) Taking into account the observations of the Apex Court made in the cases of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and The Managing Director, TNSTC (supra), wherein the interest was fixed at the rate of 7.5% per annum instead of 9% and also, at the same time, without losing sight of the fact that in the cases of N. Parameswaran Pillai and Rathi Menon (Supra), relating to claim under the Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation ) Rules, 1990, entitling the appellant interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as also keeping in view the interest given by the Banks and other financial institutions, interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount so awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization would be just and fair. The impugned order of the Tribunal is modified in the above terms Disposed off accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge July 17, 2009 mohan 5 FAO No. 110 of 2009 (O&M) C.M. No. 426 CII of 2009 in FAO No. 110 of 2009 -.- Present: Mr. B S Mittal, Advocate For the appellant Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate For the respondent -.- This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons recorded in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. is disposed of accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge July 2009 mohan 6