JUDGMENT Pradeep Kant and M.A. Khan, JJ.
1. This is an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited under the court's order. On the request of parties counsel we have proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
2. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the claimants-respondents because of the accidental death of Ram Sharan.
3. The fact that Ram Sharan was bona fide ticket holder of the train in question is not disputed. It is also not disputed that he fell from the train while coming back from the toilet and the fact that the claimants-respondents are his heirs, entitled for the compensation is also not being disputed. The only plea, which was urged before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that the deceased was mentally imbalanced and thus in a state of madness he jumped from the running train, which would not fasten any liability on the Railways for payment of compensation.
4. The aforesaid plea of mental imbalance is based upon a report sent by the Station Master where Lakhimunni, the wife of the deceased, has stated that her husband was working at Delhi as kabari and was the only earning member in the family and he was mentally disturbed who did not return to his seat while coming back from toilet in the compartment of the train and fell down. On the basis of this statement, the report was sent by the Station Master. On the strength of this report the sole plea of mental imbalance of the deceased was pressed by the Railways before the Tribunal. Apart from the aforesaid report there was no evidence led by the Railways. The fact that the wife of the deceased stated or said before the Station Master or filed an affidavit saying that her husband was mentally disturbed would not be taken to mean that he was incapable of understanding the things and was of unsound mind. It was mentioned by the wife of the deceased, in paras 3 and 18 of the affidavit filed before the Tribunal in the claim petition, that her husband fell down when he was returning from toilet to his seat. The statement of C.C.I., i.e., Chief Claims Inspector to the contrary does not find support from any evidence on record. The Railways has made an attempt to magnify the mental disturbance and the statement of the wife of the deceased that her husband was mentally disturbed to unproportionate proposition by making an attempt to prove the statement of mental disturbance as a person of unsound mind or as a person who is incapable of understanding. There is no medical history about the mental illness of the deceased nor any evidence was brought on record by the Railways. The view taken by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence that the deceased was not of unsound mind and that he fell because of sudden jerk resulting into his death, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
5. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal is dismissed. We further provide that the amount, which is in deposit before the Claims Tribunal, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents. If any amount still remains due, appellant shall deposit the same within a period of 2 months from today. On deposit, so being made, the claimants-respondents shall be allowed to withdraw the same in the manner as indicated above in the impugned award.
6. Lastly the earned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of interim order of stay passed by High Court the appellant has not been able to make the payment under the award within one year and, therefore, under the award appellant would be liable to make payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, therefore, the appellant prays that the appellant be allowed to make payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
7. Considering the circumstances as aforesaid, we direct that the interest would be payable only at the rate of 9 per cent and not at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.