S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. Date of Order: 2nd July, 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr. G.C.Garg] Mr. Alok Garg], for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Goyal, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Order dated 21.1.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case OA-I-366/94 filed by the respondent Manglam Cement Ltd. against the appellant claiming the damages of Rs.1,16,551/- with interest and cost. The learned Tribunal by the impugned S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 2 order dated 21.1.97 allowed the application filed by the respondent and held that the respondent claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,16,551/- with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application till its realization with costs. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim was decided virtually ex- parte against the appellant inasmuch as learned Tribunal closed the right of the appellant to file the reply to the claim application and, therefore, the matter may be remanded after affording an opportunity to the appellant for filing a reply. So far as the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, I have perused the record of the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal admitted the claim vide order dated 31.3.95 and issued notices with a direction to the S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 3 appellant for filing the reply on or before 3.7.95. On 3.7.95 after the service the appellant appeared but the reply was not filed and another opportunity was granted to the appellant for filing the reply and the case was fixed for 30.8.95. On 30.8.95 again the case was adjourned for filing the reply and was fixed for 6.10.95. On 6.10.95 again the case was adjourned for reply as an opportunity was sought by the present appellant for filing the reply. The case was adjourned to 27.11.95. On 27.11.95 again reply was not filed despite the fact that a last opportunity was granted by the learned Tribunal on the request of the appellant while adjourning the case on 6.10.95. On 27.11.95 the reply not having been filed despite the last opportunity having been given on the previous date the learned Tribunal declined the request for adjournment for filing the reply by the appellant and fixed the case for the claimant's evidence. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 4 In the facts and circumstances which have come on record above, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the appellant for filing the reply. From the record it is clear that right from march, 1995 up to 27.11.95 sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant for filing the reply and no reply was filed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the order closing the right of the appellant for filing reply to contest the claim. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal allowing the claim of the respondent claimant on the ground that the claim of the respondent claimant remained uncontroverted and was supported by the evidence of the claimant in the S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 5 form of the affidavit of Shri Mathura Prasad who amply proved the fact that the consignment of Cement was damaged while the possession of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the appeal of the appellant accepting the claim of the claimant respondent does not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the award of interest @ 12% per annum was at the higher side and looking to the current rate of interest the same deserves to be reduced. This Court in the case of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.251/1997 ( Union of India V/s. M/s. Banwari Lal Ram Swarup Goyal & Anr.) decided on 24th February, 2009 has taken a view that in the S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 6 claim case arising out of the Railway Claims Awarding interest @ 6% per annum would suffice the requirement of compensation more particularly when the interest has been awarded from the date of the filing of the claim which in the present case is 22nd November, 1994 and was decided on 27.1.1997. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I am inclined to partially allow the appeal filed by the appellant only to the extent of the award of the interest. The interest which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition is reduced to 6% per annum with the stipulation as in the case of Union of India V/s. M/s. Banwari Lal Ram Swarup Goyal & Anr. that in case the same is not paid within 60 days the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.718/1997. Union of India V/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. 7 Admittedly in this case the amount of compensation was paid in the year 1998 i.e. beyond the period of 60 days and, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision the appellant would be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. The appeal succeeds only to the aforesaid extent regarding interest and the appellant shall be refund of the difference of the amount of interest as indicated above to the extent of 3% which has been paid by appellant @ 12% per annum. The respondents shall deposit the aforesaid amount with the learned Tribunal within 90 days from today. This appeal is disposed of as above. (Dalip Singh),J. Tanwar/- Jr.P.A.