Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.
Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Through the instant First Appeal From Order, the appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 18.5.1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, who awarded the compensation to the respondents to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
From the record, it reflects that on 13.6.1996, one Lal Dev Shah, the husband of opposite party No.1 boarded Magadh Express, which was going from Chhapra to New Delhi. It is said that at Govindpuri Station, P.S. CNB Chowki, the deceased fell down, as a consequence whereof he suffered serious injuries to which he succumbed subsequently. It has come on record that the police conducted Panchnama and a ticket from Chhapra to New Delhi was found in his possession. Smt. Ramawati, W/o late Lal Dev Shah filed a claim petition for compensation on account of death of her husband, in an untoward incident, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and the material on record, found that the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket from Chhapra to New Delhi, which has also been admitted by the appellant. While deciding the issue No.(i), i.e. whether the claim in question is covered under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989, the Tribunal while answering against the appellant, held that the deceased suffered injuries in an untoward incident and thereby died later-on on account of aforesaid injuries.
In view of the respective stands of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issue, whether the applicants were able to prove that the death of Lal Deo Shah was due to an "untoward incident" as defined under section 123 of the Railways Act. On a consideration of the materials brought before it, the Tribunal found and held that the claimants had proved that the death of Lal Deo Shah was due to an "untoward incident" as defined under section 123 of the Act. The Tribunal, then, proceeded to consider the amount of compensation to which the applicants were entitled and found and held that under the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (as it stood at the time of the accident), the maximum compensation in case of death was Rs.2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only). The applicants were, therefore, entitled to the aforesaid amount only and nothing in excess of it, as claimed by them. It, accordingly, passed its order. The Tribunal granted 90 days' time to the appellants herein to comply with the order for payment of compensation amount, failing which it was directed that the respondents would be entitled to 12% interest per annum on the awarded amount from the date of default.
Initially, the stand of the Railway was that the accident did not take place on 13.6.1996 at the place as alleged by the claimants, but infact took place on 12.6.1996 at a place 51 Km. behind the said place. However, this stand was falsified from the police papers. Then, the second version of the Railway was that the deceased was trying to catch a running train due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. This stand of the Railway was also not accepted by the Tribunal as before the Tribunal one Ashok Prasad was examined, who deposed that he had accompanied the deceased and saw the deceased washing his hand in washbasin, who slipped from a push and accidentally fell down from the train.
Thus, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of Lal Deo Shah was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental.
Ultimately, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant press the ground that the Tribunal committed an error in inflicting penalty in the event compensation is not paid in the prescribed period. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others [(2004) 2 SCC 370].
In the case of Keshav Bahadur (supra), the Apex Court while considering the provisions of 110-CC and Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act the Apex Court observed that a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty, which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed under the said Act. However, the Apex Court observed that award of interest is discretionary and is given to compensate the victim or his dependents atleast to some extent for such delay as may occur.
Recently, in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of India and another (2009) 7 SCC 372, the Supreme Court while considering the question of right to receive interest on the compensation, observed that neither under Railways Claims Tribunal Act nor the Railways Act, 1989 there is provision for payment of interest on the awarded sum, but 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 Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. In paragraph 25 and 26 of the report, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"25. It is, therefore, clear that the Court, while making a decree for payment of money is entitled to grant interest at the current rate of interest or contractual rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged to be payable and/or awarded, from the date of claim or from the date of the order or decree for recovery of the outstanding dues. There is also hardly any room for doubt that interest may be claimed on any amount decreed or awarded for the period during which the money was due and yet remained unpaid to the claimants."
"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."
Counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no cross appeal for awarding of interest on the compensation amount. It is true that no cross appeal has been filed by the claimants for interest, but in the judgment rendered in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others (supra), the Apex Court approved the order of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court in directing the Railway to pay interest at the rate of 6.5% per anum on the award amount from the date of default. In the case of Dr. K.R.Tandon v. Om Prakash and another (1998)8 SCC 421, the Apex Court not only upheld the grant of interest on the compensation award but keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances, the Apex Court also enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 12% from the date of application being made. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008)9 SCC 527 the Apex Court while considering the provisions of Section 123(c)(2), 124Ac and 127 of the Railways Act and the expression "untoward incident" held that the provisions of Section 124-A are in the nature of a no fault liability in case of railway accidents and a bonafide passenger travelling on a train would be entitled to compensation for such untoward incident irrespective of who was at fault therefor. The Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. Banilal, has also come to the conclusion that there is no prohibition either in Railways Act or in Railway Claims Tribunal Act to award interest on compensation and that the Tribunal has power to award interest during the pendency of the proceeding before it.
Thus, the assertion of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in inflicting interest in the event of default in making the compensation within the prescribed period is wholly misconceived. We should keep in mind that provisions for compensating monetarily either under the Railways Act or Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the purpose for award of interest is to put pressure on the relevant person not to delay in making the payment. In other words, when any amount is due to a creditor and the same is not paid by the debtor over a certain period, the creditor is deprived of the use of the said amount for the period during which the amount remains unpaid for which he is entitled to be compensated by way of payment of interest.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal is dismissed. Since a period of more than 12 years has already elapsed from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, the compensation amount along with interest need not be kept in fixed deposits, but should be paid to the appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. The payment must be made within three months from today. Costs easy.
Dt.12.3.2012 lakshman/-