abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 OF 1999 Union of India .. Appellant V/s 1. Smt. Sulochana Baliram Nikalaje 2. Smt. Lilawati Madhukar Kanthe 3. Pralhad Laxman Kamble 4. Madhukar Laxman Kamble 5. Ramchandra Laxman Kamble 6. Sou. Nirmala Shravan Gaikwad 7. Sudhakar Laxman Kamble .. Respondents Mr.A.N. Samant for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents are absent when called. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st August 1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). - 2 - 3. One Muktabai Laxman Kamble was travelling in Sahyadri Express along with her daughter-in-law Smt. Vijaya Kamble on 12th September 1994 from Mumbai to Pimpri. At the Pimpri Railway Station while alighting from the train, Muktabai fell down on the railway track through the gap between the train and the platform and received severe injuries. She ultimately succumbed to the injuries in the Sassoon Hospital at Pune. The respondents, who are her heirs and dependants, filed a claim application before the Tribunal for compensation. After consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decision till payment. That decision is impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant only urged two points before me. He firstly submitted that the Tribunal was not right in awarding the compensation without proof of negligence on the part of the railway. He further submitted that in any event, the rate of interest awarded at 12% per annum was excessive and the Tribunal erred in awarding the interest at that rate. 5. So far as the point of negligence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that - 3 - the matter has been covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895. In that case, the Supreme Court has held that section 124-A of the Railways Act imposes a strict liability or a no fault liability in case of an untoward incident on the railway. The factum of accident was not seriously disputed before the Tribunal as also before me. In view of this and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court imposing strict liability in respect of railway accidents, it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in granting the claim for compensation. 6. As regards the interest, it may be noted that the interest can be awarded under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the interest has not been awarded from the date of the application but has been awarded only from the date of the decision. The matter was decided in the year 1998. It is the matter of common knowledge that in the year 1998 the rates of interest were at the peak and the nationalised banks at that time were not granting loans at a rate of interest less than 12% per annum. Since the Tribunal has exercised the discretion in awarding the interest at 12% per annum and it is not shown that the discretion is in any way arbitrary or perverse, no interference is - 4 - called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 7. In the circumstances, I find no fault in the decision of the Tribunal on either of the counts. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, however without any order as to costs as the respondents have chosen not to appear at the time of hearing. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)