U.O.I. Vs. SMT. SHAMIM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. appeals raise fundamental legal issues with regard to the power of Railway Tribunal (henceforth to be referred to as 'The Tribunal') to award interest to the claimant while granting compensation. These are two contrary views expressed by this court : first in the case of Smt. Jeeto Devi & ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1382/04) wherein this Court impliedly held that the Tribunal has the power to grant interest on the compensation. Second in the case of Union of India Vs. Master Varun Bagdi (2005(3) - DNJ (Raj.) 1294) , wherein this Court categorically held that no such power has been bestowed on the Tribunal. These issues are arising in large number of cases pending before this Court, as is obvious from the list of cases attached herewith. Hence, the necessity of addressing these legal questions.

(2.) In the present appeal the appellant has challenged the grant of interest by the Tribunal ostensibly on two grounds; firstly, that since no interest was prayed for by the claimant in the claim petition, interest could not be awarded to the claimant. Secondly, the Tribunal has erred in awarding the interest from the date of filing of the clam petition instead of from the date of the award. However, during the course of the arguments Mr. Alok Garg contended that unlike Sec. 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which empowers the Claims Tribunal to grant interest from the date of filing of the petition, no such provision exists in the Railways Act, 1989 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Act", for short) or in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Rules", for short). Therefore, according to the learned counsel the power to grant interest has not been bestowed upon the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an illegality by granting the said interest. In order to buttress his argument he has relied on the case of U.O.I. Vs. Master Varun Bagdi (2005(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1294) , wherein this Court had held that "in absence of any specific provision in the act for awarding interest on the compensation determined by the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation."

(3.) The second contention raised by the learned counsel during the course of argument is that even if a power for granting of interest is read into the Act, the said power does not permit the Tribunal to grant interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. In fact, since the liability to pay the compensation is not determined till the passing of the award, the interest can be imposed only from the date of passing of the award and not prior to it. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of U.O.I. Vs. Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad & Anr. (2004 ACJ 434 (Bom.) . He has also relied upon the case of Rathi Menon Vs. U.O.I. (2001 ACJ 721 (SC) , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had directed the interest to be paid @12% per annum "from 27.6.1997 (the date of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal)."