FA/4961/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4961 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order made thereunder? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? NO ========================================================= UNION OF INDIA - Appellant Versus PREMLATA PANKAJKUMAR SHAH (WIDOW OF DECEASED) AND OTHERS – Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for the Appellant. MR MAHESH B SHAH / MR KUNAL M SHAH for the Respondents. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 17/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. On 05-02-2000, while Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah was travelling from Palanpur to Falna by Bandra- Bikaner Express, he fell down from the train near FA/4961/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT Maval Station and died on the spot. On account of the death of deceased Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah, his heirs preferred claim petition being Case No. TA0100004 before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation from the Railways. By judgment and order dated 14-02-2007, the Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded interest from the date of the petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the interest part of the order, the appellant – Railways is in appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 2. It is contended by the learned Advocate Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt on behalf of the appellant – Railways that the Tribunal has in some cases awarded interest from the date of the petition till realization and in some cases, it has also awarded interest from the date of the award till realization. This lacunae is glaring and, therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that interest be awarded from the date of the award and not from the date of the petition. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in First Appeal No. 24 of 2002 in support of her submissions at the Bar. It is also submitted that while computing the period for awarding the interest, the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the period for which the Tribunal did not function and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding interest for the said period. FA/4961/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT With regard to the award of compensation made in favour of the claimants, the learned Advocate has not disputed the same. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh B. Shah representing the claimants – respondents vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has passed just and proper award in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs. 4 Lakhs and the interest at the rate of 6% is awarded from the date of the petition till the realization and it does not call for any interference in appeal preferred by the appellant. The learned Advocate submitted that even the interest awarded at the rate of 6% is not excessive and, therefore, the same cannot be reversed in an appeal preferred by the appellant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Advocate submitted that the appeal requires to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh B. Shah for the respondents at length and in great detail. I have also perused the judgment and award dated 14-02-2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. 5. The distraught heirs of deceased Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah had preferred petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the accidental death of deceased Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah. The death in question took place on 05-02-2000 when said Pankajkumar Rupchand Shah, who was travelling in a FA/4961/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT train from Palanpur to Falna, fell down from the train near Maval Station and died on the spot. The accident, as per the discussion by the Claims Tribunal, was rightly proved by the claimants on the basis of documentary evidence as well as oral deposition. Considering the fact that accident took place, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as contemplated in Part I of the Schedule in view of Rule 3 of the Railway Accident And Untoward Accidents Compensation Rules, 1990 to the extent of Rs. 4 Lakhs. Considering the entire gamut of oral deposition and the documentary evidence, no interference is called for in the present appeal. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that interest should be awarded from the date of the award till the realization and not from the date of the petition till the realization is stated to be rejected. Even the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 24 of 2002, on which reliance is placed by the learned Advocate, also does not help the learned Counsel in any manner whatsoever because the Division Bench has taken a view that the interest is to be awarded from from the date of the petition till the realization. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel requires to be rejected. The second contention raised by the learned Advocate is that the Railway Claims Tribunal does not sit for the whole year on regular basis and, therefore, the interregnum period, during which the FA/4961/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT Railway Claims Tribunal is not functioning, cannot be taken into consideration for calculating and awarding interest to the claimants. This submission also has no force as the claimants should not suffer on account of non-functioning of the Railway Claims Tribunal for a particular period. In view of the foregoing discussion, no interference is required to be called for in the appeal preferred by the appellant. Hence, the same is liable to fail. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed. [H. B. ANTANI, J.] /shamnath