Allowed

Smt Ful Kunwar Devi and Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Jharkhand HC4 Jan 2023MA/421/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's award for not granting interest on railway compensation awarded to the appellants. The court held that interest at 9% per annum must be payable from the date of filing the claim application until actual payment.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 08.08.2014 modified to ensure payment of interest at 9% per annum from 18.11.2009 to actual payment date. Amount of difference to be paid within two months.

Smt Ful Kunwar Devi and Ors. Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M .A. No. 421 of 2015

¶3

Smt. Ful Kunwar Devi, Wife of late Nathuni Prasad Mali

¶4

Basant Prasad Mali, Son of late Nathuni Prasad Mali

¶5

Mahendra Prasad Mali, Son of late Nathuni Prasad Mali

¶6

Manorama Devi, Daughter of late Nathuni Prasad Mali All residents of Village/Mohalla-Lagma, P.O.,

¶7

P.S. & Dist.-Garwha-822114 (Jharkhand) ..... … Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O. & P.S.-Hajipur, (Bihar)-844101. ..... …

¶10

..... … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

-----For the Appellants : Mr. Ajmal Asraf Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, Advocate. : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

17/ 04.01.2023 Heard Mr. Ajmal Asraf Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Akash Deep, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway.

¶16

This memorandum of appeal has been filed for setting aside the part of the judgment dated 08.08.2014, passed in case No. OA(iiu)/RNC/2010/0003 on the ground of not providing the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have filed claim application on 18.11.2009, stating that Nathuni Prasad Mali, who died in the accident, was holding the appropriate tickets and was travelling with his son Mahendra Prasad Mali and daughter from Garhwa Road to Ranchi. He submits that the deceased accidently fell down at Ramgarh Cantt, from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train, while he was washing his hands in wash basin. He further submits that he succumbed to injuries on spot. He further submits that the applicant Smt. Ful Kunwar Devi claimed compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs only with interest from the date of filing of the claim application for herself and for her two married sons and one married daughter, as the dependents of the deceased.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that after full fledged hearing and looking into the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the compensation in favour of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs, however, the interest has not been provided by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application. He submits that it has been held that if the amount is not paid within three months thereafter only interest will be paid at the rate of 9%

¶19

-2-

¶20

per annum till the date of actual payment. He submits that interest has not been paid in three months, as such the appellants are aggrieved with that part only. He submits that it is well settled that once the interest is awarded, the same shall be calculated, which could be from the date of filing of the claim application to the date of actual payment of the awarded amount and to buttress his arguments, he refers to Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. He further submits that in so many cases, the Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that payment of interest on any awarded sum shall be paid to the claimant. He further submits that the payment of interest on any awarded sum, the courts can derive power and grant interest by invoking provisions of Interest Act and Civil Procedure Code.

¶21

On the other hand, Mr. Akash Deep, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in para-14, the reason has been assigned of providing the interest after three months, if the awarded amount is not paid within three months.

¶22

Looking into para-14 of the judgment, it transpires that how the onus has been fixed upon the applicant, it is not clear, however, in the said para, it has been observed that the claimant has filed claim application well within time. If the order is being passed after four years and odd, it is not the fault of the appellant and reasons does not sound good. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent is negated by the Court.

¶23

The issue of payment of interest in claim application filed before the Railways Claims Tribunal has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 . The Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 nor the Railways Act, 1989 makes any provision for payment of interest on any awarded amount. Considering the aforesaid provision of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that Section 3 of the Interest Act and Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code give the power to grant interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case where statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the courts can derive power and grant interest by invoking provisions of Interest Act and Civil Procedure Code. In this context, it is necessary to quote para 21 of the aforesaid judgment:-

¶24

“21. Even though there is no provision in either of

¶25

the Acts for payment of interest on the awarded sum,

¶26

-3-

¶27

there is no denying the fact that the right to claim compensation accrued on the date of the incident, although compensation has been held in Rathis Menon Case is to be computed from the date of the award of the Claims Tribunal. In cases where the statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the power of the courts to grant interest can also be referred to from the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 and the Code of Civil Procedure.”

¶28

The interest should be paid as a person, who is entitled to receive monetary benefits is deprived from the fruits of the said benefit and the money withheld by the person is utilized by him. Since the money which is withheld was utilized by a person who had withheld the same, he should pay interest on the payable amount. This interest is by way of compensation on account of denial of the right, which a person is deprived of. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has also held that the payment of interest is followed as a matter of course when the money decree is passed. It is necessary to quote paras 26 and 27 of the said judgment:-

¶29

“26. The Courts are consistent in their view that normally when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which the money was due, but could not be utilized by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of money was passed.”

¶30

27. As has been frequently explained by this Court and various High Courts, interest is essentially a compensation payable on account of denial of the right to utilize the money due, which has been, in fact, utilized by the person withholding the same, Accordingly, payment of interest follows as a matter of course when a money decree is passed.”

¶31

In the case in hand and looking into the Lower Court Records, the court finds that the claim application was filed on 18.11.2009 and the accident occurred on 24.07.2009 and the learned Tribunal has held that the application was filed well within time without any delay in para-14 of the said award, however, the case was decided after four years eight months without providing any reason, the liability cannot be fasten upon the appellant. Further, looking into the impugned award, the court finds that the Tribunal has allowed the claim application without interest from beginning, if the awarded amount has to be settled within three months, however, it has been ordered that if the awarded

¶32

-4-

¶33

amount shall not be paid within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum. The reason of not providing the interest has already been dealt with by this Court in the above paragraphs.

¶34

In the case of money degree, in terms of the judgment cited above, as a matter of course, interest should be allowed. This has been held in para-27 of the aforesaid judgment. Where a relief has to be granted as a matter of course, then that grant is a rule and denying the same will be an exception. If the Tribunal wants to apply the exception then reason has to be assigned as to why the normal course is not being followed or is being deviated. When the Tribunal denies a relief which is to be granted on normal course, it is mandatory for the Tribunal to assign reasons, which is missing in the case in hand. The reasons have been held by this court in the above paragraphs, which is not tenable. Thus, the part of the award, by which, interest has not been granted, without assigning any reason, lacks the test of reasonableness and this cannot be accepted and is set aside.

¶35

In view of the above, the claimants are entitled for payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal till the amount was paid [i.e. from 18.11.2009 to the actual payment of awarded amount i.e. on 29.06.2015], at the rate of 9% per annum. The amount of difference of interest should be calculated for the aforementioned period and the same shall be paid to the claimant within two months from today. The award dated 08.08.2014 is modified in above terms.

¶36

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶38

Amitesh/-

Smt Ful Kunwar Devi and Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ful Kunwar Devi and Ors. v. Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Rekha Devi And Ors.

Sarbeswar Mahto and Others Vs Jagu Mahto And Ors.

Sumeru Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sunil Manjhi And Ors. Vs Pawan Rai And Ors.

Soma Oraon Vs Kaila Oraon And Ors.

Doman Tiwari And Anr. Vs Sahdeo Tiwari And Anr.