1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1008/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Mohd.Rihan Ansari. 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1011/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Smt.Ram Katori. 3. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.623/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Smt.Parbati Devi & Others. 4. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.624/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Shri Gopal Singh & Anr. 5. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1010/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Laxmi Narain & Anr. 6. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1012/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Smt.Munni Devi & Ors. 7. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1013/2009. The Union of India. VERSUS Smt.Maya Meena & Ors. 20.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the appellant. ***** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1008/2009 and 1011/2009, on the grounds mentioned therein, stand allowed. The delay in filing the said appeals stands condoned. Both the applications accordingly stand disposed of. In all these appeals filed by the Union of India, a common question has been raised i.e. in respect of the 2 effective date from which the interest should be awarded by the Tribunal while allowing the claim application. The claim applications came to be filed before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal having allowed the claim applications initially allowed the interest only in the event of the non-payment of the sum awarded as compensation within the time allowed by the Tribunal. Matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Smt.Shamim and Others reported in 2008 (2) WLC (Raj.) 366 and the Division Bench of this Court, to whom the case was referred, in so far as the question of award of interest is concerned framed question No.(iv) in that behalf. Question No.(iv) which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal which was considered by the Division Bench of this Court is as follows:- “(iv) In case the Railway Tribunal does have the power to grant interest, should the interest be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition, or the interest should be calculated from the date of the passing of the award?” The Division Bench of this court after considering the entire case law answered the question No.4, referred to above, as follows:- “Question (iv): 3 Answer: Discretion is vested with the Tribunal in view of Section 34 C.P.C., in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant interest either from the date of petition or from the date of award.” From the above, it is clear that the Division Bench of this court held that interest could be awarded from the date of application. As a result of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench when the matters were placed before learned Single Judge, the cases were remanded to the learned Tribunal for considering the aforesaid question with regard to the award of interest, the rate of interest and the effective date from which it was to be awarded. After the remand of the case by this court, the learned Tribunal considered the matter and came to the conclusion that interest be awarded @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. It is these orders after the remand which are under challenge in these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant Union of India contended on the basis of the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Smt.Geeta and Others which has been filed as Annexure-4 dated 11.09.2008 and of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Konduru Venkata Reddy reported in AIR 2008 Andhra Pradesh 211 contended that the interest could not be awarded w.e.f. any earlier date than the date of determination of the compensation as no liability in respect of the award of 4 interest could be said to have arisen prior to the determination of the compensation amount by the learned Tribunal. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel. While it is true that in the aforesaid judgments, which have been cited above, the learned Judges of the Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts have awarded the interest w.e.f. the date of determination of compensation and not from the date of application before the learned Tribunal for coming to the aforesaid decision, the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the liability of the Union of India (Railways) arises only upon the determination of compensation payable and not prior to that. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since there was no determination prior to the date of award, the question of awarding interest from the date of the application did not arise. I have considered the aforesaid submission and I find myself unable to be persuaded to accept the same. The award of interest is compensatory in nature for mitigating the hardship on account of the delay in the adjudication of the claim and taking into account the fact that during the period, as in the present case of injury resulting in disablement or in the case of the 5 death arising out of the accident, the dependents are faced with great hardship resulting from loss of earnings. Once, the learned Tribunal or the court comes to the conclusion that the claim deserves to be allowed and compensation awarded, then as a rule, interest must follow from the date of the application. The Division Bench of this court relied upon the Section 34 C.P.C. while allowing the reference in the case of Union of India Vs. Smt.Samim and Others (supra). Section 34 C.P.C. empowers the court to award interest (i) at such rate on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of decree; and further (ii) in addition any interest even prior to the institution of the suit; and (iii) future interest. Thus, once it is accepted, as held by the Division Bench of this court, that the interest could be awarded on account of applicability of the principle of Section 34 C.P.C., the Tribunal was empowered to award interest from the date of the application submitted before it. As has sometimes been held that the jurisdiction to file the claim arising out of the railway accident could be adjudicated either before the Civil Court or before the Tribunal and merely because a claimant has filed a claim before the learned Tribunal, by the choice of forum, the powers of the Civil Court under Section 34 C.P.C. to award interest from the date of filing of the suit or claim application could not be taken away. 6 In the instant case, since the applicants, who are the claimants, filed their claims before the learned Tribunal, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, the learned Tribunal having considered the relevant factors regarding the prevailing rate of interest, etc., awarded interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim before it. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the award of interest w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim which is one of the guiding factors under Section 34 C.P.C. cannot be taken exception of. In this light, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and Another reported in 1976 ACJ 141 in para 7 of the report may be taken note of wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme have held that the liability to pay the compensation on account of personal injury or death arises not on the determination of the claim by the Commissioner as it was a case under Section Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 but as soon as the personal injury was caused. Since the liability to pay the compensation arises as a result of the railway accident, as in the present case, the same arises w.e.f. the date of accident in which the death or injury has occurred resulting in loss of income which has given rise to the filing of the claim applications before the learned Tribunal. On account of the non-settlement of the claims by the Railway Administration and disputing its liability to 7 pay the compensation amount, it would be reasonable, therefore, for the learned Tribunal, as has been done in this case, to hold the Railway Administration liable to pay the compensation w.e.f. the date of filing of the application before it. In the facts and circumstances, I find no good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal in awarding the interest w.e.f. the date of the application. No other ground arises in these appeals which have been filed against the orders of the Tribunal awarding interest. Consequently, all these appeals stand dismissed summarily. The stay application and the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in all the appeals also stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.