SUNILA Vs. ROOP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only contention of the appellants in this appeal is that the interest is awarded from the date of the order, which is contrary to law, and the appellants are entitled to get interest at least from the date of application.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the rate of interest so awarded from the date of the award is proper and no interference is called for.

(3.) WE have perused the order -sheets of the Tribunal. It is found that there is some delay on the part of the claimants in adducing evidence. However, claimants' witnesses were present in Court on 16.10.1989, but the evidence could not be recorded as the Presiding Officer was on leave. Subsequently, when the case was fixed for recording evidence, the Presiding Officer superannuated from service and then again the case was fixed for recording evidence on 16.1.1991. However, on 16.1.991, the claimants have not summoned their witnesses and again on 14.3.1991, the witnesses of the claimants were not present. Subsequently, the claim -petition was dismissed on 16.11.1993 as the claimants were not examined. Then the claim -petition was restored in the year 1995 and evidence was adduced on 22.1.1996.