IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.514 OF 2010 Date:30.09.2011 Between : K.Rukkamma and others ... Appellants A N D The Union of India, rep.by General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. …Respondent JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 23.03.2010, in O.A.A.No.98 of 2005, 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.4 lakhs awarded for the death of K.Sayanna in an untoward incident on 02.09.1999. 2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a bona fide passenger. The quantum of compensation awarded is also not in dispute. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants is that the Tribunal has not granted interest from the date of application till the date of award. 3. No doubt, granting of interest during the pendency of the application is a discretionary power to be exercised by the Tribunal. That discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Section 34 C.P.C. enables and empowers the Tribunal to grant interest pendente lite. In this case, the Tribunal has recorded the reasons for not granting interest from the date of application till the date of Award. The incident had taken place on 02.09.1999 and the application was filed before the Bangalore Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal and thereafter, they applied for transfer of case to Secunderabad Bench, which was rejected in the year 2001, and as the applicants were continuously absent, the claim application was dismissed for default on 26.04.2002. They filed an application for restoration of the said petition. It is not in dispute that the case was transferred to Secunderabad Bench on 23.02.2004. On 02.05.2005, the case was restored to file. On 14.03.2006, two more sons and two daughters of the deceased were allowed to be impleaded but the applicants were continuously absent and the Original Application was again dismissed for default on 07.11.2007 and restored to file on 15.04.2008. Therefore, from the above circumstances, it is clear that the applicants have not evinced any interest to proceed with the trail and they allowed the application to be dismissed for default twice. When there are lapses on the part of the applicants, they cannot take any advantage of their lapses. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded interest from the date of the order but not from the date of application. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 30th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.514 OF 2010 Date:30.09.2011 AMD