IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RRAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 18.11.2008. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.4526/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India challenging the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 26.8.2008 in favour of the respondent who are the heirs of the deceased passenger Hemendra Kumar Jogi who died in a railway accident on 7.8.2005 while traveling from Rajkot to Mathura by train No.1465 Viraval -Jabalpur Express. A claim petition came to be filed on account of the death of Hemendra Kumar Jogi and in response to the notice the railway administration filed a written statement and contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. The relevant issues were framed and the evidence was led before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died as a result of the accident while traveling on the aforesaid train and he had a valid ticket for the journey bearing No.33341695 dated 7.8.2005 from Rajkot to Mathura. All the issues were decided by the learned Tribunal and accordingly the learned Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants for Rs. 4 lacs “along with costs as per rules” and the claimants were also held entitled to receive interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award the railway administration, the Union of India has preferred the present appeal. Though the learned counsel wanted to urge the question with regard to the award of interest, however in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated 10.1.2008 in Union of India VS. Smt. Shamim & Ors. Reported in 2008 Vol.3 RLW page 1973, the aforesaid plea does not survive. The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter contended that while the Tribunal had awarded cost “as per rules” but the Additional Registrar of the Tribunal while preparing the decree sheet as mentioned in the seal on the reverse of th certified copy has quantified the same as Rs.5,350/-and there appears non basis for the same as no break has been given. Learned counsel took pains to submit that under Rule 29 of the Railways Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989 while exercising discretion the Tribunal may pass orders in respect of costs incidental to the proceedings before it. However, the proviso specifically make it clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the parties more than three times during the proceedings. He submits that adjournment in the case were not on account of any default on the part of the appellant and therefore the appellant could not be saddled with cost on that account if the Additional Registrar has awarded cost on account of adjournments. So far as the above submission is concerned I am of the view that since the decree sheet, on the reverse of the order of the Tribunal does not give any break up of the amount of Rs.5,350/- awarded as costs liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the Tribunal in this behalf for clarification by moving an application for review or modification. Subject to the above, this appeal is dismissed summarily. The stay application is also dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS