L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN these appeals, filed under Section 23 of the railway Claims Tribunal Act, the only grievance of the appellants is that the tribunal has not awarded any interest on the amount of compensation, in the respective claims.

( 2 ) IN the claims presented before it, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded different amounts, in favour of the respective appellants, in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act and the Rules made thereunder. It did not grant any interest pendente lite. However, it imposed the condition that, in case the amount awarded by it is not deposited within two months from the date of order, the compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum, from the date of the order, till the date of realization. At the stage of admission itself, learned Counsel for the appellants had advanced extensive arguments.

( 3 ) SRI S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though there is no specific provision in the railways Act or Railway Claims Tribunals act, it is always in the discretion of the tribunal to grant interest. He submits that the claims were presented in the year 1999, and for variety of reasons they were not disposed of immediately. He contends that a writ petition had to be filed in this court, seeking directions to the Railway board to constitute the Tribunal, and that the delay in disposal of the claims cannot be attributed to the appellants. Placing reliance upon various judgments rendered by this court as well as other High Courts, learned counsel submits that the appellants are entitled to be awarded interest pendente lite.

( 4 ) THERE is no specific provision in the Railways Act, providing for grant of interest, similar to Section 171 of the motor Vehicles Act. Though the Tribunal is not equated to a Civil Court, the availability of power to grant interest on the principles of Section 34 C. P. C. , cannot be seriously disputed. Even in cases to which Section 34 c. P. C. , applies, award of interest, from the date of institution of the suit or proceedings, is discretionary; pendente lite interest cannot be claimed as of right. Award of interest is mostly governed by the terms of contract between the parties, the nature of denial of the claim of the plaintiff or petitioner and the probable loss or hardship to which the parties may have been subjected to.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants relied upon several judgments, in support of his contention. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Laxmipati, AIR 1995 MP 90, took the view that it is competent for the railway Claims Tribunal to award interest. In Union of India v. Janardhanan, AIR 1998 Mad. 272, the Madras High Court took the view that though Section 34 of the c. P. C. , is not expressly made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal, it is competent for the Tribunal to award interest, in the absence of the specific bar. A division Bench of the Kerala High Court in union of India v. M. Thankaraj, AIR 2000 Ker. 91, held that it is competent for a railway Claims Tribunal to award interest, since there is nothing in the Railways Act prohibiting the grant of interest. In Gudisela rajamma v. Union of India, 2002 (4) alt 370 (DB), a Division Bench of this court was dealing with a case where the tribunal rejected the claim, on the ground that there was no material placed before it, to show that the deceased died due to accidental fall. This Court reversed the finding and awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, as compensation, with interest at 9% per annum. Attention of this Court is invited to the various orders, where interest was granted on the amounts awarded as compensation.

( 6 ) IN none of these judgments it was held that it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to award interest, on the amount of compensation adjudicated by it. The discussion proceeded on the lines, that though section 34 of C. P. C. , is not directly applicable, there is nothing in the Rail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document