Back
ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.
TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Civil Appeal No. 3568 of 2009
Decided on : MAY 14, 2009
(2008) 9 SCC 527 – Relied upon impliedly
(2001) 3 SCC 714; (2002) 4 SCC 306; (1976) 1 SCC 289; (2007) 1 SCC 508; (1998) 8 SCC 421 – Referred
(b) Interest Act, 1978 – Section 3 r/w section 34, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Claim for interest – Can be made for period during which the money was due but not paid – Normally courts awarding interest from the date of institution of claim or from the date of award – Rarely from a prior date – Railway Claims Tribunal directing payment of interest on default of the payment of the principal sum within a period of 45 days – Not sustainable – Instantly Tribunal taking 8 years to decide the claim – Delay not on account of any fault of appellants – Tribunal ought to awarded interest from the date of institution of claim. (Para 16, 17, 19, 23)
(1999) 3 SCC 257; (1992) 4 SCC 217 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
On 13th November, 1998, one Kunhi Moosa, the husband of the Appellant No.1, Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi, boarded the Madras Mail from Payyannur Railway Station to go to Madras. When the train was about to move from Parappanangadi Railway Station, the said Kunhi Moosa was robbed of the money that he was carrying with him and during the scuffle he was thrown out of the train by his assailants as a result of which he expired.
In 1999, the appellants filed O.A. before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation amounting to Rs.4 lakhs.
On 18th August, 2006, the accused persons were convicted under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part and directed the Union of India and its authorities to pay to the appellants herein compensation of Rs.4 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was given to the Appellant No.1, a sum Rs.1,50,000/- was allotted to the Appellant No.2 and Rs.50,000/- was allotted to the Appellant No.3. The Railway Claims Tribunal granted 45 days time to the respondents herein to comply with the order for payment of the compensation amount, failing which it was directed that the appellants would be entitled to 6.5% interest per annum on the award amount from the date of default.
The appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Judgment
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 13th November, 1998, one Kunhi Moosa, the husband of the Appellant No.1, Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi, boarded the Madras Mail from Payyannur Railway Station to go to Madras. He had occupied berth No.67 in Coach No.S-5, while his brother-in-law and two others who were travelling with him occupied berth Nos.66 and 26 in the same coach. When the train was about to move from Parappanangadi Railway Station, the said Kunhi Moosa was robbed of the money that he was carrying with him and during the scuffle he was thrown out of the train by his assailants as a result of which he expired. The police registered Crime No.46/98 in respect of the said incident and the case was taken to the to the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode.
3. In 1999, the appellants filed O.A.No.68 of 1999 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, for compensation amounting to Rs.4 lakhs. On 18th August, 2006, the accused persons were convicted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC, for short) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal by its order dated 26th March, 2007, allowed the application in part and in terms of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, directed the Union of India and its authorities to pay to the appellants herein compensation of Rs.4 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was given to the Appellant No.1, a sum Rs.1,50,000/- was allotted to the Appellant No.2 and Rs.50,000/- was allotted to the Appellant No.3. The Railway Claims Tribunal granted 45 days time to the respondents herein to comply with the order for payment of the compensation amount, failing which it was directed that the appellants would be entitled to 6.5% interest per annum on the award amount from the date of default.
5. The said Award of the Railway Claims Tribunal was challenged before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam by the appellants herein on the ground that in view of the decision of this court in Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India [(2001) 3 SCC 714], the claim for compensation would arise from the date of the incident. Such a view was expressed by this Court on account of the fact that the Railways Act, 1989 did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the Central Government from time to time. Reliance was also placed on another decision of this Court in N. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2002) 4 SCC 306], whereby 12% interest was granted from the date of application till the date of judgment following the decision in Rathi Menons case (supra).
6. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court took the view that even though the interest for the prior period had not been awarded, the Tribunal had awarded interest in case of default in compliance with the order for deposit of the compensation amount. The High Court was of the view that since the Tribunal had applied its mind while making the order and since awarding interest is the discretion of the Tribunal, there was no ground to admit the appeal only on the question of interest. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the present appeal has been filed by the claimants, namely, the heirs of Kunhi Moosa against the order of the High Court.
7. Having regard to the fact that the Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded the maximum compensation which can be awarded under the Act, the only question which, therefore, falls for decision in this appeal is whether both the said Tribunal and the High Court were justified in not granting interest on the amount of the Award from the date of the incident or from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment of the awarded sum.
8. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in Rathi Menons case (supra) one of the issue which was touched upon was with regard to the question as to the relevant date from
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
