P.DASARADHA RAJULU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the claimants assailing the Award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.A. No. 220 of 2006 dated 11.07.2011. The scope of the appeal is only with respect of not granting interest from the date of filing of the application on the awarded amount. The learned counsel for the appellants - claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in granting interest from the date of the Award on the ground that the counsel, who appeared for the claimants before the Tribunal is a seasoned advocate practicing for years in the Tribunal, would have known who is correct respondent was. The Tribunal ought to have granted interest from the date of the application as it is only a technical error for which the appellants - claimants cannot be deprived.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

(3.) Even if it is assumed that the counsel who appeared for the claimants before the Tribunal knowingly filed the claim application before the forum which has no jurisdiction, the claimants cannot be found fault with for such act of the counsel and it is not justifiable on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the claimants are not entitled to interest from the date of the application on that ground. For the fault of counsel, the claimants shall not be deprived of their legitimate right of interest. Further, when the Tribunal allowed the I.A. filed by the claimants for amendment of the name of the respondent from East Cost to South Central Railway, it goes to root of the matter and it tantamount to filing the application originally before the appropriate forum, and as such, the Tribunal ought to have granted the interest on the awarded amount as claimed by the claimants. The acceptance of the awarded amount by the claimants towards full and final settlement cannot be a defence proper. Further, in the decision in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & Ors., 2012 1 DT(SC) 383, the Apex Court, while referring the judgment of a four judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 1 SCC 289) wherein it was held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment and thus the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim, has confirmed the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam, who granted the interest on the awarded amount from the date of the accident. It is settled law that payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants.