1. - In all these appeals, common question of law as to whether the Railway Claims Tribunal can claim award interest or not, is involved and therefore, they have been clubbed together and they are being decided together.

2. Submission of counsel for the appellant(s) is that in its recent judgment in Mohamadi and others v. Union of India (2011 (4) T.A.C.873 (SC) , the Supreme Court while placing reliance on its earlier judgment in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India (2010 (1) T.A.C. 420(SC) , has settled the controversy regarding payment of interest from the date of application. In the said case, the Tribunal had directed that the compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application i.e. 25.5.1995 till its payment to the claimant and on appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's order and directed that interest would commence not from the date of the application but from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, which was passed on 2.12.2002. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the Tribunal's order in regard to the accrual of the interest with effect from the date of application.

3. Counsel further submits that earlier, on account of the conflicting view of this Court, the question of interest on compensation amount was referred to the Division Bench of this Court which was resolved by the Division Bench on 10.1.2008 in the case reported in Union of India v. Smt.Shamim and others (2009(3) RLW 1973 (Raj.) and while answering Questions (i), (ii) and (iii),it was held that the although 1987 Act does not specifically vest the Tribunal with the Authority to grant interest, yet the power and authority to grant interest flows from Sections 18(3)(i) and 13(1) of 1987 Act read with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 and Question (iv) was answered in the terms that discretion is vested with the Tribunal in view of Section 34 Civil Procedure Code in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant interest either from the date of petition or from the date of Award. Counsel then submits that the cases were remanded back to the Claims Tribunal and since now the Supreme Court has settled the controversy with regard to carrying of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till its payment to the Claimant(s), now there is no need to remand the cases back to the Tribunal.

4. Counsel for the respondent(s) submits that there is no provision in the Railways Act, 1989 and The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Act, 1990 to award interest, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has no right to award interest . No judgment has been cited in support of the aforesaid submission by the counsel for the respondent(s).

5. I have gone through the memo of appeals and further considered the aforesaid rival submissions of counsel for the parties, along with the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellants.

6. Before proceeding further, since the controversy has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in its later judgment dated 5.8.2010 than the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10.1.2008, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paras 2,3 and 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohamadi and others v. Union of India (2011 (4) T.A.C.873 (SC) ,which are as follows:Paras 2,3 and 5 of Mohamadi and others v. Union of India (2011 (4) T.A.C.873 (SC)

"2. This appeal raises a very limited issue as to the day from which interest would accrue on the amount of compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal directed that the compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 25th May, 1995 i.e. the date of the application till its payment to the claimant. On appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's order and directed that interest would commence not from the date of the application but from the date of the judgment of the Tribun