IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT The Union of India Vs. Ram Prasad & Others (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4764/2008) S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 3-6-2008 passed by learned Judge, Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in O.A. No.11/4/2004. Date of Judgment: August 18, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the judgment dated 3-6-2008, passed by Judge, Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short `the Tribunal') the appellant-non-claimant has filed the present Misc. appeal. 2. The respondent-claimants had filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after having heard the rival submissions, vide award dated 19-9-2007, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants. Since the interest on the amount of compensation was not awarded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the claimant preferred S.B. Misc. appeal No.1583/2008. The said appeal was decided by this Court on 23-4-2008, and the matter was remanded back to the learned Tribunal with the direction to consider the question of payment of interest, on the amount of compensation, whether it should be paid from the date of filing of the claim application, or from the date of the award. On remand, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 3-6-2008, has awarded 6% interest, on the amount of compensation, from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 12-1-2004. Further, if the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of two months from the date of the order, the interest shall be paid at the rate of 7% per annum. Hence, the present Misc. appeal before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, has contended that on remand of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have decided the question of fixing the date of interest with some reasoning, after applying its judicious mind. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. 5. A bare perusal of the order dated 23-4-2008, passed by this court clearly shows that earlier the learned Tribunal had not awarded any interest on the compensation amount, therefore, the claimants preferred the said appeal. 6. In the case of Union of India Vs. Smt. Shamim & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.263/1997), decided on 10-1-2008, the question was referred to Division Bench with regard to interest on the amount of compensation which reads as under:- (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 answered the said question as follows:- 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. 7. In view of the order dated 10-1-2008, passed by Division Bench, this court remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal with the direction to consider the question of payment of interest, on the amount of compensation, whether it should be paid from the date of filing of the claim application, or from the date of the award. On remand of the matter, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 3-6-2008, has awarded 6% interest from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 12-1-2004. Further, if the amount of compensation along with the interest is not paid within a period of two months from the date of the order, the interest shall be paid at the rate of 7% per annum. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 3-6-2008 clearly reveals that in view of the reference answered by the Division Bench in order dated 10-1-2008, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality. The matter was remanded to the learned Tribunal only to consider the question of interest, and it has correctly exercised the discretion vested in it. 9. Hence, this misc. appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn