1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.608 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2496 OF 2009 WITH CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.15383 OF 2010 Union of India .. Appellant V/s Sachin Shivaji Shinde .. Respondent Mr.T.J.Pandian for the Appellant. Mr.T.J.Mendon for the Respondent. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 8th July, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Mr.Mendon waives service on behalf of the Respondent. By consent of the parties, appeal is heard forthwith. 2. The appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the learned Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short Tribunal). By that judgment the Tribunal partly allowed the application made by the Respondent herein and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. From the date of the order till realisation. 3. Mr.Pandian submitted that the Respondent herein is not entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- and as per Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the Respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.80,000/-. 4. Rule 3(3) of the Rules reads as under:- “3. Amount of Compensation- (3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than an injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in sub-rule (2) 2 resulting in pain and suffering, shall be such as the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration medical evidence, besides other circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable; Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each such injury: Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed rupees eighty thousand.” 5. Mr.Mendon fairly does not dispute that in view of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, the Respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.1,40,000/- . He however submits that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of the order till realisation. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of the application till the date of the award and thereafter @ 9% p.a.from the date of the award till realisation on the awarded amount. He states that the Respondent has filed the cross- objections claiming the interest as aforesaid. 6. In support of his submission, Mr.Mendon relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors.V/s.Union of India & Another, 2009 ACJ 2444. In that case the Apex Court held that neither the Railway Act, nor the Railway Claims Tribunal Act make the provisions of interest on the awarded amount. The power of the Court to grant interest can be invoked under the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The claimants are entitled to the interest on awarded sum from the date of the application till the date of recovery since the claimants cannot be faulted in delay in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of money. The Apex Court therefore allowed the interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of the application till the date of the award and thereafter @ 9% till payment. 7. In view of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, the Respondent is entitled to Rs.80,000/- as compensation. The impugned judgment and award therefore deserves 3 to be modified. Further having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tahazhathe (supra) the Respondent is entitled to interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of application till the award and @ 9% p.a.from the date of award till the deposit is made by the Appellant. Mr.Pandian submits that so far as interest @ 9% from the date of Award is concerned, the appellant has already deposited the entire decretal amount on 29th March, 2010. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering position, the appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of in the following terms:- ORDER (a) Appeal No.608 of 2010 is partly allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned judgment and the award dated 9th February, 2009 is modified to the extent that the appellant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 80,000/- by way of compensation to the Respondent together with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the application i.e.from 28th January, 2005 till 9th February, 2009. The appellant shall pay interest @ 9% p.a from 10th February, 2009 till 28th March, 2010 on the amount of Rs.80,000/-. Rest of the order of the Tribunal is maintained. (b) The learned counsel for the parties agree to furnish the calculations to the Registry. (c) Cross objection Stamp No.15383 of 2010 stands disposed of. 9. In view of disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application No.2496 of 2009, and the same stands disposed of. (R.G.Ketkar, J.)